Marriage Builders
Posted By: KiwiJ This is respectful - I promise - 07/23/08 09:51 PM
When I arrived on MB I was not still engaged in an A. The A had ended and my H and I had started recovery. I'd been looking all over the web for somewhere where I could learn how to do that. I'd looked at a "wayward" site and nearly threw up. The things I saw there were definitely not for me. A lot of other sites were very definitely just for BS's. MB addressed the WS and the BS. I read the articles and was amazed there was a plan, there was a plan for WS's as well as BS's.

With great trepidation I posted my first post. I didn't think I was very foggy but I was. I was called on my fogginess but, you know something, no one yelled at me, no one was rude or abusive. I was given tools, I was asked to look at myself. Sometimes I said particularly foggy and stupid things. I was taken to task, I was asked to LOOK at what I was saying and why I was saying it.

I know that I was a receptive WS. I came to MB for the purpose of recovery, not to justify my A. It's a funny thing though, a foggy wayward doesn't even know they're justifying. They think they're telling it like it is.

I know that the MO here is sometimes to abuse an active affairee. I'm not sure whether it's meant to wake them up or make them see the error of their ways. To me, that approach always turns into a shouting and slanging match.

If you've ever seen JL posting to waywards you will see what can be achieved with firmness which isn't abusive.

No one is asking anyone to mollycoddle or accept what an active wayward says but there is definitely more than one way to skin a cat.
Posted By: Krazy71 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/23/08 09:56 PM
I've been no angel here, but I think anyone who is still in an affair should either be relegated to their own forum, or banned altogether.

This isn't an affair-intervention site, after all.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/23/08 10:01 PM
Active affairees very seldom turn up here. Most WS's who do turn up are on the first steps to recovery. I often wonder why people who are still in an affair do come here and tend to give them benefit of the doubt that something is happening in themselves to make them seek out a marriage building site. The first inklings that what they are doing is wrong, if you like.

Of course, there are always the troublemakers and trolls. It's sometimes difficult to sort them out from genuine people but, really, I think troll behaviour is so close to WS behaviour I'd rather let them speak first and make a call later on.

Who knows. One active affairee may become a recovering spouse.
Posted By: mimi_here Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/23/08 10:40 PM
Quote
This isn't an affair-intervention site, after all.

I see what you mean but I think this DEFINITELY IS AN AFFAIR-INTERVENTION SITE.

This is the first place that I came to begin AFFAIR-INTERVENTION..A WAR AGAINST MY HUSBAND'S AFFAIR that took LOADS OF INTERVENTION PLANS gained from this site.

I wouldn't agree with a BAN AGAINST those ACTIVE in an AFFAIR.

That person may be able to get HELP here.

We can direct that person to the HARLEYS.

My H certainly was ACTIVE in his AFFAIR when he received his FIRST INTERVENTION from STEVE HARLEY.

That one SESSION didn't bring an END to the AFFAIR but it certainly was CRUCIAL INTERVENTION that BEGAN the process.

Maybe someone HERE could say just the THING to START that PROCESS for someone...

In fact, I'm sure that has happened....



Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/23/08 11:47 PM
I'm sure it's happened, 2. I remember posting 2 active waywards. I felt I needed 2, as it was an oppor2nity for me 2 see, by proxy, in2 my W's at the time wayward mind. That was for my perspective, and 2 give me a leg up in2 finding ways 2 approach my W that wouldn't drive her deeper underground.

It used 2 work, but I think that many of the most active "old-timers" here are as stuck, or stucker even, than early post-d day BSs trying 2 find their emotional footing after having their world shattered.

2 me, now 6.5 years past d-day and finally in2 a real marital recovery (my W's VLTA was almost 2wice as long as it's taken 2 get here), I find it ludicrous 2 compare my W's infidelity 2 rape or the death of a child. After d-day, maybe rape, if I were a woman and could possibly have a clue what that felt like, but I've seen loved-ones die, and no way could it have been worse than if one of my kids had died. And now that I'm not suffering like I was after d-day, the whole pain-comparison thing isn't just silly, it's dwelling on the past in such an unhealthy manner as 2 prevent the dweller from learning the real personal-growth-inducing lessons brought on by the tribulation.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/23/08 11:59 PM
Originally Posted by Krazy71
I've been no angel here, but I think anyone who is still in an affair should either be relegated to their own forum, or banned altogether.

This isn't an affair-intervention site, after all.

I agree. But that may be because I'm a BS.

I don't think the FWS's here who seem to support what I call 'coddling' will ever understand the pain of the BS and our reactions to an active wayward.

Just like I can't understand their feelings of guilt.

Maybe waywards should only post to waywards and betrayed to betrayed?
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/23/08 11:59 PM
t/j that I'm hoping KiwiJ won't mind...

2long, I used to post with you on Spacecase's thread (I was YetAgain, or YA).

Quote
2 me, now 6.5 years past d-day and finally in2 a real marital recovery
That is marvelous 2long, just marvelous!! I've read your stuff on an off during the past 6.5 years. I can't tell you how happy I am for you and your wife!

t/j over....thank you KiwiJ. smile

Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 12:06 AM
Hi LB, I mean YA!

Now is so different from all the priors. My W isn't even "quite there" yet, but making pretty big leaps pretty often regardless.

We didn't "do it" the MB way, either. We're making it ours.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 12:48 AM
Quote
I find it ludicrous 2 compare my W's infidelity 2 rape or the death of a child. After d-day, maybe rape, if I were a woman and could possibly have a clue what that felt like, but I've seen loved-ones die, and no way could it have been worse than if one of my kids had died. And now that I'm not suffering like I was after d-day, the whole pain-comparison thing isn't just silly, it's dwelling on the past in such an unhealthy manner as 2 prevent the dweller from learning the real personal-growth-inducing lessons brought on by the tribulation.

Having gone through the deaths of several family members I loved more than I can say, my parents included, and a brutal attack by a stalker, I tend to agree with you. The other loss you mention I cannot even contemplate...

But I know, that like love, pain is impossible to measure. Especially another person's pain.

What you say about dwelling on the past is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. As it is the one thing that has allowed me to survive, even more than survive. I refuse to live in the past. I refuse to conjur it up, except here on MB when relaying what makes me relate to a certain post. Nothing is more detrimental to a good life than dwelling on past hurts/betrayals. That is why I abhore the title BS in recovered individuals, marriages. I don't like title's for that reason and refuse to label myself in my sig line. It's obscene in my opinion to label yourself as something that happened to you years prior. Plus how can your WS be a F when you are not a F BS? I don't get that, but don't feel like arguing the point. It seems like such an obvious embalance. An equation that doesn't add up. FWS + BS = what? Am I making sense here?

There comes a time when the past must lose all significance, or the present and even the future are an absolute waste of time.

On WSs' thread - I try like the devil to avoid them as they provoke such anger in me, but alas every once in awhile I slip and post. But for me it is less one of triggers and more of personality conflicts. That and I just can't stand a liar. LOL

It seems to me that you should just ignore the threads that tick you off and post on the threads that you feel you may have some insight.

Posted By: Just Learning Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 12:52 AM
Folks,

This IS AN AFFAIR INTERVENTION FORUM. If ever there was a place for an active WS to come and see what they are doing to their spouse, this is the place. BUT, more importantly as Mimi pointed out, it is a place YOU AS A BS would want your WS to come.

Why? Because the WS just might see enough through the fog to begin to understand what they are doing. If you yell at them, they pull their head back into the fog. If you talk with them, show them things they have not considered, and gradually give them time (yes the time Harley mentions for affairs to end), they often come around.

Here is something else everyone seems to forget. A WS does not come here UNTIL and UNLESS they deep down want to end this affair, but are struggling with "feelings" for the OP. No one comes to marriage builders unless deep down they WANT to have a better marriage.

I know the BS' on this site seem to think it is THEIR site, but it is not. In fact, if you read Harley's articles this is a site about saving marriages and that takes BOTH parties to do it.

I view handling WS' like fishing. It takes patience, a deft touch, the right lure, and knowing when to set the hook. We don't hook all that nibble, but the goal should be to do that. For if you can bring a WS around, you have a good chance of saving the BS a lot of heartache and money, with a divorce. You also have a chance to save some children a lot of pain.

I agree the WS should be called on their "fog" talk. I disagree with berating them because they become defensive and leave, but worse they just defend. You don't want that.

Personally, I think the goal should be to get as many WS' here as possible, and then do our best to offer them a path HOME, so that the BS's and their children (if there are any) are spared more pain.

Finally, the active WS on this site do give the BS a glimpse into the possible thinking and illogic of their spouse. Knowledge is a powerful tool, get it where you can.

I will close by mentioning. I grew up in the military, I was trained to be in the military, I was in the military, and I have brought grown men to tears with my ability to tear at their minds. It was the old "break them down and then build them up". It worked/works. HOWEVER, there was one huge difference between that situation and this one, or even a situation if one were a policeman.

The people that come here can leave at will. In those other situations they cannot, thus berating, and breaking them down can be accomplished and when accompanied by a plan to rebuild them it works. If you break them here and they leave, you cannot rebuild them and we are after all on a rebuilding site.

If any of you knew me in person, you would know that my approach and behavior on this board is not my NATURAL response to certain situations. But, I would like to think it is more effective than my natural response, because after all my only purpose here is to learn and help.

I won't tell anyone else how to do it, but I will tell you I thought long and hard about how and why I do it the way I do and I decided that rather than me feeling good, I would rather be of help especially to the BS and their family. That to me means getting the WS to listen, learn, and change their perspective. Most don't/won't do it from a position of defense.

Just thoughts. But I will say again this is not a site just for BS'. Read what Harley has written, but more importantly consider what would be best for the BS of the WS. You need them here to make any changes.

God Bless,

JL
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 12:57 AM
Originally Posted by 2long
2 me, now 6.5 years past d-day and finally in2 a real marital recovery (my W's VLTA was almost 2wice as long as it's taken 2 get here), I find it ludicrous 2 compare my W's infidelity 2 rape or the death of a child. After d-day, maybe rape, if I were a woman and could possibly have a clue what that felt like, but I've seen loved-ones die, and no way could it have been worse than if one of my kids had died.

But, you can only speak for yourself, not others. Dr. Harley does not think the comparison is "ludicrous" nor do many other people who HAVE buried a child or who have endured RAPE. Dr. Harley makes this observation after 35 years of clinical experience, an experience you don't have.

For me, I would say that it IS worse than the death of a child, and I actually had to bury my beloved 18 year son, Bryan Joseph, on his 19th birthday on October 11, 1999. You can't tell me it is "ludicrous" to make such a comparison. And you can't tell the numerous patients of Dr. Harley the same thing. You can only speak for your own EXPERIENCE, 2Long. Not mine, not anyone elses.
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:02 AM
No, you cannot measure or compare another person's pain, or love, Mel.

My God, whenever I read your story, the losses you have had, I feel like crying.

Your strength is just so admirable. I work with a lady who lost her only daughter, and when I tell her I can't believe how she has survived this, she tells me that we have no idea our own strength until we go through something like this.

My good friend Mel. (((((Mell)))))
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:02 AM
Frankly, I have not seen this "coddling" of waywards that some refer to, and believe me, I would notice. I am the last person who would coddle a WS. But that does not mean that folks should attack and call names, that helps no one.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:08 AM
thank you, weaver. you have been through so much yourself. {{{{{{{{{{weaver}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:08 AM
Originally Posted by Just Learning
I know the BS' on this site seem to think it is THEIR site, but it is not.

That's unfair and condescending


Originally Posted by Just Learning
I view handling WS' like fishing. It takes patience, a deft touch, the right lure, and knowing when to set the hook.


And others 'fish' differently than you. That does not make your methods better or right.





[/quote]
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:12 AM
Quote
Frankly, I have not seen this "coddling" of waywards that some refer to, and believe me, I would notice.
I referred to it on another thread and it was from the perspective from a long time ago in the earlier days after the betrayal.

Quote
I am the last person who would coddle a WS.
That's how I remember you from that same time period. laugh

Quote
But that does not mean that folks should attack and call names, that helps no one.
I agree. I like how JustLearning explains it. Maybe his post would be useful on a thread of its own?

Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:14 AM
Quote
That's unfair and condescending
iam, I think he meant some, not all.

I agree with him.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:16 AM
Originally Posted by iam
And others 'fish' differently than you. That does not make your methods better or right.

And your success rate for getting through to WS's is...?

JL has pointed more people (BS and WS) in the right direction than I can count.

I, and many, many others on this board owe JL more than I could ever put into words.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:18 AM
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
I am the last person who would coddle a WS.

Never!!! LOL. You're kidding me. wink

You are another one I owe a huge debt of gratitude to.
Posted By: TheRoad Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:22 AM
kiwij and melodey

I have felt for awhile that their has been a shift here on MB.
Where WS's first post here and they are slammed for having or still being in an affair.

When I logged on tonight and before read this thread I read a first post by a WW. I told the first and only poster to this WW's thread that she did not hit the WW with a 2x4 but a log.

As justlearning said "I view handling WS' like fishing. It takes patience, a deft touch, the right lure, and knowing when to set the hook. We don't hook all that nibble, but the goal should be to do that. For if you can bring a WS around, you have a good chance of saving the BS a lot of heartache and money, with a divorce"

I told that poster how was the BH going to be helped if she scared away this new WW?



Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:25 AM
You know, Kiwi, we all have our own communication styles and different people will reach different people.

There are people you will NEVER REACH and there are people I will NEVER REACH. That doesn't mean we are bad posters or that our contributions have no value. [except when we are talking extremes] What makes this forum so successful is a wide variety of posters that can reach different people at different times.

But there is no call to denigrate any poster here because he doesnt "reach" 100% of anything. You don't and I don't. I may not reach all waywards, but you dont reach many betrayeds. Anyone who thinks he WILL is unrealistic and doesn't recognize that our strength lies in our DIFFERENCES, not our non existant similarities.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:27 AM
TheRoad, it looks like the mods have their hands full for sure. smile
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:27 AM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
I am the last person who would coddle a WS.

Never!!! LOL. You're kidding me. wink

You are another one I owe a huge debt of gratitude to.


{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{JEN}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:30 AM
I don't think there's been a shift and I've been here since '04. Active, unrepentant and downright ornery WS's have always been given hefty 2x4s. So have BS's BTW.

There's such a fine line between "enabling" a WS and "hooking" a WS. JL treats everyone with humanity. That is what shines through. I never felt I was a label (coincidentally, that is exactly how my H treated me as well - as me but as a different me who had hurt and betrayed him.)

I am sure there are some here who think "who cares? What does it matter if another WS leaves - good riddance."

But MB is for all. I have seen some of the foggiest, abusive, justifying WS's become stalwarts of the board.
Posted By: lostwillow Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:31 AM
As a BS, I still call myself a BS has I am not yet in the recovered stage.

I just like to say that it all depends at what stage you are in. I learned it by posting to a WW after my d-day, during one of my anger stages, it took me a while to realise that was not the right way to help if not that WS at least their BS. I felt happy someone else replied and kept that WS around and that he did not leave because of my reply to them.

I learned a lot from reading WS threads. And still do.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:32 AM
Mel, that was a lovely post. Thank you. So true, too.
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:35 AM
Quote
I told that poster how was the BH going to be helped if she scared away this new WW?

Top

Sometimes the BH is better off without the WW.

Someone looking to change their ways is not easily scared off. Humble comes to mind.


And I can't bear the thought of a repentent wayward living with pain and regret. To me there is nothing sadder, nothing. Not even a shattered BS and family is sadder than a WS that repented after it was too late.

However, sometimes the BS is better off without the WS.

All of our perspectives are valid and have a right to be.

I can't stand waywards, and even Jen knows that. Thank God for JL and the others that see their good. That's all I can say.
Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:37 AM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Originally Posted by iam
And others 'fish' differently than you. That does not make your methods better or right.

And your success rate for getting through to WS's is...?

JL has pointed more people (BS and WS) in the right direction than I can count.

I, and many, many others on this board owe JL more than I could ever put into words.

Who are you to judge me? You know nothing about me. Do you feel my pain as I watch another wayward justify their actions?

I'm not attacking JL. Just the comment that us BS don't know how to speak to WS's.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:43 AM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Mel, that was a lovely post. Thank you. So true, too.

Here is something I noticed early on. I am not good at CHIT CHAT or sympathetic talk, but others here ARE. Some people just need to TALK, they need sympathy, and they need people who will just CHAT with them. They get so much out of it. That is why I have always defended the existence of idiotville and others like it.

On the other hand, I am good at ACTION PLANS. I like to assess, plan and make tactical moves. I voraciously read Dr Harley's writings and listen to his radio shows. I can also move a despairing BS off the train tracks and out of peril. That is what I am good at.

But I am USELESS when it comes to chatter or sympathetic talk. And some people NEED THAT. They need sympathy. Others here are SO GOOD at that and I am so grateful they are here to provide that assistance.

JL, for example, is BRILLIANT when it comes to working with FOGHORNS. He is like watching a WORK OF ART in progress. He can kick some [censored] and make them like it!! I could never do that and I recognize my limitations. I very respect HIS talent in this arena.

I have great appreciation for the different styles, talents that others bring to the table. Most people are bound to get what they need here with such a variety of TALENT and expertise. I so love this place for its diversity and its HEART.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:54 AM
Originally Posted by iam
Who are you to judge me? You know nothing about me. Do you feel my pain as I watch another wayward justify their actions?

I am not judging you. I was just saying that I have seen JL's method work so often. I can understand why you wouldn't be interested in helping WS's and I can understand why you want to yell at them. I also understand how it must hurt you to see wayward's justifying. It must make you want to throw up.

But.....if you've been around as the fog lifts and the penny drops - it's wondrous.

It's easy to say, keep off those threads but I know the draw to them. I get drawn to the "let's see how many revolting names we can think of for OP's." I know I should keep away and I never post to them. What would be the point? They're not aimed at me. It's also very good for me - it strengthens my resolve NOT to be any of those names ever again.

Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:09 AM
Quote
I have great appreciation for the different styles, talents that others bring to the table. Most people are bound to get what they need here with such a variety of TALENT and expertise. I so love this place for its diversity and its HEART.

I agree. And there is nothing so beautiful or creative than seeing diversity in action. That is a living work of art.

SO DON'T STUNT US!!!

Whosoever you are that would. laugh

Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:11 AM
I will tell you what I have seen FAIL with REMARKABLE CONSISTENCY. And that is coddling waywards and telling them what they want to hear and treating them like they are the victims instead of the victimizer. We have a few PRIME examples of that very thing with 2 recent affair [or deceit] promoting WS' who have been on another site spouting unchallenged fogbabble for quite some time. And getting away with it. They were clearly not accustomed to having the fogbabble rationalizations challenged AT ALL and were SHOCKED and ANGRY when challenged here. SHOCKED.

Thankfully, this forum is not, and likely never will be, at that horrible, destructive extreme. Not as long as there is a breath left in my body, that is. grin
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:15 AM
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Originally Posted by 2long
2 me, now 6.5 years past d-day and finally in2 a real marital recovery (my W's VLTA was almost 2wice as long as it's taken 2 get here), I find it ludicrous 2 compare my W's infidelity 2 rape or the death of a child. After d-day, maybe rape, if I were a woman and could possibly have a clue what that felt like, but I've seen loved-ones die, and no way could it have been worse than if one of my kids had died.

But, you can only speak for yourself, not others. Dr. Harley does not think the comparison is "ludicrous" nor do many other people who HAVE buried a child or who have endured RAPE. Dr. Harley makes this observation after 35 years of clinical experience, an experience you don't have.

For me, I would say that it IS worse than the death of a child, and I actually had to bury my beloved 18 year son, Bryan Joseph, on his 19th birthday on October 11, 1999. You can't tell me it is "ludicrous" to make such a comparison. And you can't tell the numerous patients of Dr. Harley the same thing. You can only speak for your own EXPERIENCE, 2Long. Not mine, not anyone elses.

I think this is important, that we understand not everyone will agree 100% on what is the most painful experience of their life. There are so many variables involved that could make one pain hurt harder or longer, and those might be different things for different people.

What we DO know, is that it is an incomprehensibly heartbreaking event for anyone.

BTW Mel, I am so sorry about your son. I've seen you mention him before, and it always makes me sad for you. I'm glad we both believe that this life is not all there is!!
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:15 AM
its alot like watching a dumb drunk come into AA who tries to lay his bullcrap on us. It is hilarious to watch their SHOCK and DISMAY when they realize their bullcrap won't work at AA as it works at home!! They are SO USED to people actually buying their crap that they are in shock when it no longer works! laugh

Thank you so much, keepitreal. smile
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:19 AM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
Quote
I have great appreciation for the different styles, talents that others bring to the table. Most people are bound to get what they need here with such a variety of TALENT and expertise. I so love this place for its diversity and its HEART.

I agree. And there is nothing so beautiful or creative than seeing diversity in action. That is a living work of art.

SO DON'T STUNT US!!!

Whosoever you are that would. laugh

I agree! There are many things I love about MB, but the diversity (within reason) which is allowed here makes it unique among such sites. Different approaches, but never an allowance for crap.

To be blunt, the other sites make me sick to my stomach.
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:29 AM
I've been to a couple of other really good sites, but keep coming back to this place because I have friends here.

There is something that bugs me about this place, and I am not going to go into it now...

Well hell, maybe I will.

I just don't get why one would want to study a wayward or why they think the way they do. Wouldn't you want to study someone who is successful in life? If building a ship, you would study what makes something float, not what makes something sink, right?

I chose to learn from the BS's, from those who had not strayed. To me they held the secrets to success. The secrets to integrity and honoring ones vows.

And also, why is a former wayward on a pedestal for finally doing what they should have been doing all along? Do we esteem former embezzlers because they finally stopped embezzling?


I don't get that. But other than, that I love it here.

On the other hand I praise my DD constantly because she is finally doing what she should have been doing all along. So I don't know. crazy

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:34 AM
Quote
And your success rate for getting through to WS's is...?

I am sure given time it will be higher than yours. JL reaches some people for sure...so does Mel, and so do I. I have reached some WS that you couldn't touch with your style and vice versa. SO WHAT. Stop with your divisive postings that suggest how other people should or shouldn't post.

Iam...just do what you do and don't worry about this stuff. JL can teach you much...but not everything...JL is no more effective than many of the vets here...you can learn from many of them. The sting of infidelity is a great teacher as well. Experience counts for a lot. There are posters here that think everyone should aspire to be JL...others think LA...guess what...be you. Ignore the fools that want to change what and how you post. The moderators have the ability to step in when things get out of line.
Posted By: Verve Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:34 AM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
I chose to learn from the BS's, from those who had not strayed. To me they held the secrets to success. The secrets to integrity and honoring ones vows.

And also, why is a former wayward on a pedestal for finally doing what they should have been doing all along? Do we esteem former embezzlers because they finally stopped embezzling?

This made so much sense to me. I hadn't really thought of it that way, but you are so correct. Thank you.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:35 AM
Originally Posted by Esprit
Originally Posted by JosieJones
I chose to learn from the BS's, from those who had not strayed. To me they held the secrets to success. The secrets to integrity and honoring ones vows.

And also, why is a former wayward on a pedestal for finally doing what they should have been doing all along? Do we esteem former embezzlers because they finally stopped embezzling?

This made so much sense to me. I hadn't really thought of it that way, but you are so correct. Thank you.

makes a lot of sense to me too.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:37 AM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
I just don't get why one would want to study a wayward or why they think the way they do.

And also, why is a former wayward on a pedestal for finally doing what they should have been doing all along? Do we esteem former embezzlers because they finally stopped embezzling?

I think BS's find it very helpful to see what might be going through the mind of their own WS. It's a way of trying to comprehend the uncomprehendable. In the same way, it was by listening to some of the BS's here, I understood much more of how my own H was feeling.

As to the other part. Hmmmm, I don't think I've ever been put on a pedestal here, Weave. Actually, that's not entirely true. My fall was felt very strongly and very hard by people here because I was a "textbook" FWW. I, for one, don't put anyone on pedestals. We're all far too human.

I know what you are saying, though. I don't expect esteem because I pulled my head out of my a**. I just ask to be treated like the human being I am.

Bob Pure mentioned that a while ago. He felt he'd lost the "right" to have negative vents on the board because he was held up as a "textbook" BS.
Posted By: Verve Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:39 AM
I do have to say though...LOL if my WH ever makes it home and decides to post on here...I hope that medc and melody bust his chops...he certainly needs it smile

Haha it would probably run him off though laugh
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:40 AM
Originally Posted by medc
Stop with your divisive postings that suggest how other people should or shouldn't post.

For Pete's sake MEDC...why don't you just come out and say what your beef is with me instead of taking pot shots.

I think people should post in whatever style suits them. I always have. I just don't like verbal abuse - I don't like it IRL. So shoot me.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:46 AM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
And also, why is a former wayward on a pedestal for finally doing what they should have been doing all along? Do we esteem former embezzlers because they finally stopped embezzling?

I know exactly what you mean as a recovering alcoholic. I get congratulations for just doing what I was SUPPOSED TO be doing all along. Everyone ELSE was doing the right thing all along! Why should I get a pat on the back for just doing what I was supposed to do? crazy

While my sister was working hard in college making good grades, I was out partying and blowing off homework. While other people were working hard, paying their bills, being upstanding citizens, I was drinking and being irresponsible. I only wanted to have FUN and escape life in a bottle, while they were working hard and facing life HEAD ON.

And *I* get the congrats? crazy THE ones who didn't drink like a fish and took care of their responsibilities are the ones who deserve to be on the pedastel. Heck, my great grandmother had 95 years of sobriety when she died!! They are the ones I ADMIRE and the ones I had to learn the HARD WAY to emulate. I wanted to be like them when I GREW UP. smile
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:49 AM
**edit** Well, your definition of abuse is not the same as everyone else's. Some things clearly rise to that level...BUT, you are not the keeper of all that is right/wrong. You and B **edit** on Fatty's thread and frankly there was no abuse there. Your subsequent "call out" thread was immediately shut down by the mods...I did not have one single comment edited on that thread...not one...and the mods were notified about the posts for sure. Why...because it wasn't abuse, **edit** Perhaps if you worried a bit more about what YOU are doing and not others, YOU wouldn't have found yourself in some of the situations that you have managed to fall in.

People on this board take their time to post to others in a manner which they feel will help the most. Nobody is right 100% of the time. But I will say that I am happy to have helped some people here and made some friends as well....even if I did get under the skin of people like you at times.

Give it a rest. YOU worry about your postings and let others worry about theirs. The mods will handle the rest.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:56 AM
Wow.
Posted By: Pepperband Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:01 AM
When anyone has put me on a pedestal I realize it suits their needs not mine. I also realize that at any given moment I am one second away from falling off their pedestal and this makes the relationship at risk for suddenly falling apart.

The need/desire/tendency to put others on a pedestal is interesting. It is a form of manipulation.

"Here stand up on this thing in the limelight for all to admire - this is how good I think you are (as long as you don't make the wrong mistake, in which case get off immediately)."

To me, MB is largely behavioral concepts geared toward a specific goal.

Do XYZ - regardless of your desire to run away/see other people/get your gun and shoot someone - and the chances are your love for your spouse will return and your marriage has a higher chance of recovery.

To praise anyone (WS or BS) when they are actually DOING XYZ for the betterment of their marriage makes sense to me. Because that is how behavioral theory works.

Baby steps - a little praise
Fall backs - a little encouragement & re-education
Serious regression - a 2X4 across the bow
Lying and deceiving other MB posters while pretending to do XYZ ... meanwhile actually doing nasty low down things - I don't ever want to speak to them again

that's my MO - that is what works for me

no damn pedestal - no way

Pep


Posted By: Pepperband Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:03 AM
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Originally Posted by JosieJones
And also, why is a former wayward on a pedestal for finally doing what they should have been doing all along? Do we esteem former embezzlers because they finally stopped embezzling?

I know exactly what you mean as a recovering alcoholic. I get congratulations for just doing what I was SUPPOSED TO be doing all along. Everyone ELSE was doing the right thing all along! Why should I get a pat on the back for just doing what I was supposed to do? crazy

While my sister was working hard in college making good grades, I was out partying and blowing off homework. While other people were working hard, paying their bills, being upstanding citizens, I was drinking and being irresponsible. I only wanted to have FUN and escape life in a bottle, while they were working hard and facing life HEAD ON.

And *I* get the congrats? crazy THE ones who didn't drink like a fish and took care of their responsibilities are the ones who deserve to be on the pedastel. Heck, my great grandmother had 95 years of sobriety when she died!! They are the ones I ADMIRE and the ones I had to learn the HARD WAY to emulate. I wanted to be like them when I GREW UP. smile
in case you forgot


Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
ā€“ Luke 15:32



Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:13 AM
Originally Posted by Pepperband
Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
ā€“ Luke 15:32

Forgiveness is so DIVINE. {{SNIFF}}
Posted By: rightherewaiting Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:14 AM
Oh, yes, Pep. It's about MERCY. We humans have such a hard time with that.
Posted By: Resonance Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:22 AM
Quote
I just don't get why one would want to study a wayward or why they think the way they do. Wouldn't you want to study someone who is successful in life? If building a ship, you would study what makes something float, not what makes something sink, right?

Well, Josie, I can tell you that the reason I wrote the Wayward Mind thread is to reach BSs who come here and truly believe with all of their heart that the WS standing in front of them is the "same" person they have known for years. Everyone thinks THEIR wayward spouse is different--they don't lie like that, they don't have time to sneak around, they wouldn't neglect their own children for the OP...but the fact of the matter is--they DO! And the sooner a BS understands that part of it, the sooner they can commit to the Harley PLANS that are so amazing.

The bottom line (IMO) is...if you don't understand how something works (in this case your new "enemy" that used to be your spouse), then you cannot begin to know how to fix it. If you choose NOT to fix it--that's understandable...but for those who WANT their "old" spouse back, they need to know the way affairs/waywards work. Much like Alanon does with people who still love their spouses, even though they all of a sudden need to drink every night.

Quote
And also, why is a former wayward on a pedestal for finally doing what they should have been doing all along? Do we esteem former embezzlers because they finally stopped embezzling?

I understand the point you make here, and I agree.

I also agree with Mel that when a wayward first posts here, they are definitely not coddled. I certainly wasn't. And I do take exception to the notion that straight talk, and some 2x4s, don't go a LONG way in helping to overcome the fog. When a wayward comes here in an effort to recover their M, sometimes it is exactly what is needed. I didn't have the pleasure of being posted to by JL when I arrived, but his work with waywards is amazing as well. People respond differently to varying styles. I think this place is wonderful for BOTH BSs and WSs who wish to recover (even if they don't know it yet).

I just wish we didn't need to fuss over posting styles so much. If a certain poster, topic, or thread causes you grief, then don't read! Move on to someone you can help and be done with it.
Posted By: _Larry_ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:25 AM

Yea, wow is right.

See, it works like this;

1. Harley owns this site and sets the rules. His group, his family, are professionals. They have a professional's viewpoint of what works and what doesn't work. The site serves the purpose of group think structured around Harley's concepts, attracts people to professional coaching and allows someone to vent. If you can't afford the pros, you at least get the charity of what others have learned and are willing to pass on.

2. This site serves humanity in dire need. Humanity is diverse by any definition. When Mel kicked my fundament some time back for trying to get on people about what they were posting, I gave it a thought and came up with that all by my lonesome. In other words, the rules allow diverse postings for a reason. And the reason is obvious if you think about it. Bonk!

3. I totally agree with JL's point; this is an Affair Intervention Forum/support group. We don't put FWS on a pedestal (at least I don't), we celebrate their graduation from a tough school, just like we do those who make it through the school of hard knocks or college, as the case may be. Hey, now they are grownup and we expect appropriate behavior henceforth, right?

Mostly though, people here care. And nobody puts a gun to their head and makes them that way. So I tolerate those who get out of line from time to time, because I know they care, even if I think they are misguided and chuckle a bit when the mods do what they are supposed to do.

One thing I might suggest:

See it is that most of us kinda specialize. In other words, we are only effective in helping someone in certain defined areas. I will use myself as an example; I help BS get out of their FOG, and sometimes I can read the mind of a wayward wife. That is about it for me. Anyway, I don't try to post all over the place unless I can add something to the discussion and that something might make a difference now or in the future. A friend of mine calls that a razor; a thought or statement might help someone fall in the right direction off the razor's edge.

Right, wrong or just there, I appreciate everyone on here who is trying to help their fellow human be a grownup.

Larry
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:34 AM
I think I agree with your whole post.
Posted By: _Larry_ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:40 AM
Originally Posted by medc
I think I agree with your whole post.

Which brings up something else. For me, I don't really care if someone agrees with me or not, it is the getting them to think that is important. "I think" means to me that someone is using their brain cells instead of acting emotionally. Thinking may not always work, but it beats the consequences of not thinking, right? Thanks medc, you triggered the last of what I wanted to say.

Larry
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:44 AM
glad to be of service.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:49 AM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
And also, why is a former wayward on a pedestal for finally doing what they should have been doing all along? Do we esteem former embezzlers because they finally stopped embezzling?

Hmmm Weave...I certainly don't feel like I'm on a pedestal...Not in the least...My actions as a wayward were the WORST...I certainly don't celebrate them, and realize that I could have avoided it all if I had chosen to follow God's plan from the get go...I chose to rebel...The grace and mercy that I've been shown bring me to tears often...

I do think that repentant FWSs bring HOPE to this forum...I am here to try and repay some of what Mr. W and I received here...Sharing just how far God has delivered me is powerful testimony, imo, and I hope that I can help someone...If anything good can come from the horrible thing that I did, then I am willing...

And I am reminded of this scripture...


"I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." Luke 15:7


Mrs. W
Posted By: Aphelion Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 04:27 AM
Originally Posted by Just Learning
I view handling WS' like fishing. It takes patience, a deft touch, the right lure, and knowing when to set the hook. We don't hook all that nibble, but the goal should be to do that.
Have you ever fished with dynamite, JL? One can collect an awful lot of fins in a very short time. ā€˜Course, catch and release it ainā€™t. Some end up on the dock already filleted.


Originally Posted by Just Learning
The people that come here can leave at will. Those other situations they cannot, thus berating, and breaking them down can be accomplished and when accompanied by a plan to rebuild them it works. If you break them here and they leave, you cannot rebuild them and we are after all on a rebuilding site.
I believe that is the intent of this site. But I have also come to believe the forums help far fewer than hoped. And it isnā€™t because anyone in particular is run off. Itā€™s because this place is just plain way too noisy. The real help is found at the MB counseling center. The forums helped me somewhat in the first few months after D-Day 2 because I felt less alone here. But, I received no expert advice that turned me around some metaphorical corner. I simply endured a bit longer than I would have otherwise. Mostly gaping open mouth at the sheer ugliness of adultery. I did not know WS could be so totally mean and nasty. I did not know anyone sans the criminally insane could be as horribly awful as WS are.

Originally Posted by Just Learning
I will say again this is not a site just for BS'. Read what Harley has written, but more importantly consider what would be best for the BS of the WS. You need them here to make any changes.
True. True. And True. But, and itā€™s a small but, I no longer post to WS. Not even FWS for the most part. I have become almost obsessive about it. What these adulterers do to others, even innocent children, in the name of their libido, romantic love, infatuation, fantasy, entitlementā€¦call it any dang thang you wish, goes beyond my ability to put up with any small piece of it. The lies, the fog, the sheer ugly inhumanity of it ā€“ I do not even read WS threads any more. I donā€™t care how long an adulterer has had their F, I want nothing to do with them. The taint, the smell of what they have done lingers forever.

Forgiveness is fine and dandy. It is commanded. They owe me nothing. Not even FWW. But I am not required to be around them either.

And thatā€™s probably a good thing - for me and them.

One more thought: the majority of adultery here is what is called garden variety. Affairs fitting Harleyā€™s two years or less - a ONS, a drunken encounter barely remembered, a few months of addictive euphoriaā€¦an obvious mistake, if you will. Thus, as 2 Long noted, LTAs and especially VLTAs have no model here for recovery. Plan A does not work ā€“ WS stayed in the M all during the VLTA because BS in fact met ENs very well. Plan B does not work because the VLTA WS has long been gone in mind and heart and cutting them off is either sort of what they have been waiting for or they just say and do what they think they need to say and do because they are very, very good at it from a decade or more of practice and just go further underground.

Taking out the OP should pretty much be the recommended recovery intervention in VLTAs, IMO.

For VLTA BS, major personal growth is the indicated approach. Forget the M. The WS will figure something out, or not, on their own. VLTA BS should be encouraged, and actively helped, to grow away from the M, IMO. Loving detachment at the very least. But that does not fit Plan A and Plan B. It does fit Plan LS using an attorney from the ranks of the undead. I rarely see that advised here.

Such advice would have been better for me way back when. Now it is too late, and I blame it on the din that overwhelmed me here when I was so vulnerable. This is why I only post directly to BS in non-garden-variety cases. I tell them to call the MB counseling center so they can get the important information they need straight from the horseā€™s mouth. I feel so strongly about this I often offer to pay for it.

It may not be fishing, but filleting a WS is a mighty fine sport just the same. Itā€™s just that I find it to be a waste of time. I honestly donā€™t care about WS any more. They care enough about themselves for the both of us.

With prayers,
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 04:59 AM
I am so very sorry for what you've been put through Aphelion...

Whether you read my words or not won't really matter, as God knows what it is you need, and I have faith that He will give that to you...I said a prayer for you, and asked Him to do just that...

He still hears and answers my prayers, despite my being a FWS...

Peace be with you...

Mrs. W
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:59 AM
Originally Posted by Aphelion
True. True. And True. But, and itā€™s a small but, I no longer post to WS. Not even FWS for the most part. I have become almost obsessive about it.

Yet here you are on my thread. Aph, I know we've talked in the past. I also know we had a falling out which had nothing to do with infidelity.

Luckily (is that the right word - probably not) my H sees me as me and he loves the me that is me. I love the him that is him. In the scheme of things that's all that matters. Not whether MEDC thinks I can't keep my yap shut (lol - that made me smile, I've been in trouble for not keeping my yap shut since I first learned to talk), not whether I'm an FWW or a PQRZTXWW, just what my dear H thinks.

We have laughed together more in the last two years than we ever have. We have talked and we have been happy together. We adore our children, they adore us. Our son worries us, our daughter is bridezilla. We are happy.
Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 07:33 AM
I wonder if your wife detects that same attitude Aphelion.

See I don't even see my wife or MrsW as a FWW anymore. I just see my wife, my spouse. and MrsW is my friend.

I think I'm past labels.
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 07:37 AM
Mel:

Quote
But, you can only speak for yourself, not others. Dr. Harley does not think the comparison is "ludicrous" nor do many other people who HAVE buried a child or who have endured RAPE. Dr. Harley makes this observation after 35 years of clinical experience, an experience you don't have.

Dr Harley is referring 2 the comparison made between these things and a BS who's just discovered an affair.

What experience I do have that is relevant here is surviving, nay, THRIVING, in spite of what happened 2 my marriage in the past. Sure, I could relive and rehash the experiences and the things I felt in the first 2 years or so after d-day, but why would I want 2? Life is 2 interesting and wonderful for that.

keepitreal:

Quote
I think this is important, that we understand not everyone will agree 100% on what is the most painful experience of their life. There are so many variables involved that could make one pain hurt harder or longer, and those might be different things for different people.

I used 2 compare the pain I experienced from events that happened before and after d-day 2 the pain I felt on d-day all the time. Probably the single most stuckey thing I did. I haven't done that in a long time, but it's easy 2 get sucked back in2 doing so by participating in discussions about it! Which was my original point. Why dwell? And when I stopped dwelling on past hurts, I really started truly enjoying the present.

Josie:

Quote
I just don't get why one would want to study a wayward or why they think the way they do. Wouldn't you want to study someone who is successful in life? If building a ship, you would study what makes something float, not what makes something sink, right?

It's called "Failure Analysis". I'm a geologist, but I work in a field where failures do happen, and when they do, it's really expensive. I wasn't trained as a failure analyst, but I've found myself involved in some of it, and fascinated by it. One favorite quote from a colleague (though the source predates him) goes: "We don't learn anything from our successes, only our failures."

Forever after d-day, I couldn't "learn" anything from my W about infidelity. She still doesn't like talking about it, but will now (whereas she absolutely wouldn't then). So, I had the BSs and the WSs 2 "learn" from here. And frankly, I learned a lot more about how 2 interact with my W from the still-fogbound here than I did from others like me - who were nevertheless equally likely 2 vent uselessly for months/years on end as the waywards.

Others:

I never could understand the seemingly-endless dialog about "coddling" or "telling others how 2 post." What's that all about?

Pep:

Quote
The need/desire/tendency to put others on a pedestal is interesting. It is a form of manipulation.

Interesting thought. Not sure I can relate. If there was ever anyone I put on a pedestal, it was my W, before and for a while after d-day. Goofy thing 2 have done, in retrospect.

She'll never be on that pedestal again, and that's a good thing for both of us, in my view.

I like what you said about praise. When I was a pump jocky back in the early 70's, I had an employer who used 2 always thank us at the end of the day for coming 2 work. Sure, we were paid 2 do the job. So, why would he thank us? Why did he feel the need 2? Truth is, he did it because he wanted 2, and because he felt good and we felt good knowing that all was copacetic with the world for one more day.

The right thing 2 do - which I learned from him - was 2 accept the praise graciously, and offer some of my own in re2rn.

Works on my W, 2.

Appy:

It's because we un42nately share an understanding of VLTAs from personal experience that I know you understand me when I say that, although I now truly take my M at face value and one day at a time because I know how fragile the promise is, it's not like I'm on the verge of bailing at any perceived shortcoming on her part. Been married 32.5 years now. It means something entirely different 2 me than it did 20 years ago, or even 3 or 4 years ago (but by then, I had an inkling it would be thus).

I don't worry about infidelity anymore. My W learned her lesson. And I've learned mine.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: bcboyb Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 07:53 AM
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Mel, that was a lovely post. Thank you. So true, too.

On the other hand, I am good at ACTION PLANS. I like to assess, plan and make tactical moves. I voraciously read Dr Harley's writings and listen to his radio shows. I can also move a despairing BS off the train tracks and out of peril. That is what I am good at.


I have great appreciation for the different styles, talents that others bring to the table. Most people are bound to get what they need here with such a variety of TALENT and expertise. I so love this place for its diversity and its HEART.

And let me say THANK YOU to MelodyLane. I at first could not / would not believe what she was saying. But she persisted and got through my thick skull what was going on. And now I read about the pain she has experienced. So here is a wonderful example of a person who has taken that pain and used it to help others. I suspect she will never know how much.

I am here to testify on how she has helped me. I used to cringe when I saw here reply to one of my pleas for direction. She was the plaster to fit the sore. You are doing a good thing here MelodyLane. I appreciate how you reached out to me during the most difficult time in my life. Keep up the good work.

God Bless
Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 12:11 PM
Originally Posted by medc
Quote
And your success rate for getting through to WS's is...?

I am sure given time it will be higher than yours. JL reaches some people for sure...so does Mel, and so do I. I have reached some WS that you couldn't touch with your style and vice versa. SO WHAT. Stop with your divisive postings that suggest how other people should or shouldn't post.

Iam...just do what you do and don't worry about this stuff. JL can teach you much...but not everything...JL is no more effective than many of the vets here...you can learn from many of them. The sting of infidelity is a great teacher as well. Experience counts for a lot. There are posters here that think everyone should aspire to be JL...others think LA...guess what...be you. Ignore the fools that want to change what and how you post. The moderators have the ability to step in when things get out of line.

Thanks MEDC. I appreciate that you took the time to understand how that post affected me. I may be a 'newbie' here but that does not negate my input. It seems everyone judges your life experience based on your sign up date! That just pisses me off royally. I'm 2 years into a recovery that would make most men crawl and hide under a rock. I've kept my vows and paid a price no former wayward could ever comprehend. To have one condemn me as useless here tells me something of their heart.

Sometimes I don't understand some people here. If I saw someone getting raped my first instinct would be to crack the skull of the rapist, not stand next to him and talk him out of it. God help the wayward if I found out their name. Their spouse would get a call in seconds.

Again, thanks MEDC.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 12:15 PM
Quote
Sometimes I don't understand some people here. If I saw someone getting raped my first instinct would be to crack the skull of the rapist, not stand next to him and talk him out of it. God help the wayward if I found out their name. Their spouse would get a call in seconds

I agree 100%.


and you're welcome.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 12:34 PM
Originally Posted by bcboy5440
And let me say THANK YOU to MelodyLane.

Thank you so much for your kind words, bcboy. And thank you for listening! smile
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:28 PM
Originally Posted by iam
God help the wayward if I found out their name. Their spouse would get a call in seconds.

You would be a very good man for doing that IAM...Not only would you be helping to bring truth to the life of the victim of the wayward, but you could also very well be giving LIFE to the wayward...Exposure is a wonderful thing...

See, I believe what the Bible says about there being no unrepentant adulterers in Heaven, and I know that I owe my life to those who helped save me from myself...That includes Mr. W, my mom, The Harleys and so many people here - BSs and FWSs alike...

Someone earlier in this thread, (it may have been you IAM), suggested that BSs only post to BSs and WSs only post to WSs, but I must say that I will be eternally grateful to EVERYONE that posted to me, but most especially those dear BSs that helped me "get it" in a way that I'm sure no others could have...

And you are right IAM, there is no way that I could fully comprehend what it's like to be a BS - Mr. W cheated on me many times prior to marriage, but I understand that isn't the same...I have given as much effort as possible towards empathy...I cry many times in reading the stories here...Mr. W allowed me to read his journal from the time that I was wayward - I feel that really helped me to, at least partially, grasp just what I had done to him, my understanding that has been very beneficial to our recovery...

Anyway IAM, just thought I'd share...I wish you and your wife all the best in continuing recovery...

Mrs. W
Posted By: Tabby1 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 01:52 PM
I hate waywards. I hate them in real life and I hate them here.

I read WS threads to help understand what happened in my own M and to help me deal with my WstbxH and his tantrums.

I post to WS's in the hopes of helping them out of the fog, not for their benefit but for that of their BS. I would sure get a lot of satisfaction knocking them down with a 2x4, and I don't hesitate to if after a few posts they still refuse to see daylight. But for the sake of their BS, who I feel a strong connection with regardless of if they ever post here or not, I try to help.

I find it therapeutic, even though my own M will never be saved. Pain doesn't vanish simply because you make a decision.
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:17 PM
It is important to understand how an affair works, I will agree with that much, but I see no need in understanding how a wayward mind works. I can't believe that I am going to for the first time probably ever, disagree with ole 2long. All I need to know about something that doesn't work is that it doesn't work. If I want to change my life I need to understand what people who have successful lives do to become successful. Not how unsuccessful people get that way.

But had I been married to someone I loved and who was once a good person, than I suppose I would have had to understood in order to want to try and rebuild with them. You would have to in order to have faith that whatever it was could be undone.

Pep,

Quote
in case you forgot


Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
ā€“ Luke 15:32

This father loved both his sons very much, and the obedient son was able through his fathers example and love to love the wayward brother as his father did, even though it wasn't fair.

I attribute this to a father and brothers love, not to forgiveness. Because if you truly love someone, as a parent does his child, there would be nothing to forgive, love simply is, it is not dependent on anothers actions.

And I will never understand how in the Bible it states that God loves the lost sheep more than the rest of His sheep. Why? I don't really want an answer to that, just stating one of the things that never really rang true for me. Amazing Grace used to be one of my favorite hymms, but now I think it is over romanticized when someone turns from being lost and finally finds their way home. It is far better in my opinion to never have been lost in the first place. So again one needs to study the road that leads to success, not the road that leads to destruction and then make a uturn and go find the right road.

Just my opinion and one that is ever changing at that.



Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:29 PM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
It is important to understand how an affair works, I will agree with that much, but I see no need in understanding how a wayward mind works.

See, I think you are saying that one should not understand the WS mind in order to give it CREDENCE? Is that what you are saying?

I do agree with that.

On the other hand, I do see a need for understanding the wayward mind for the purpose of SELF PROTECTION. I very much DO understand the wayward mind and how deceitful and cruel and selfish it is. I think is important for a BS to understand it so they can protect themselves and so they can call the WS on their bullcrap.

Most BS' who come here cannot FATHOM what they are up against. Some refuse to believe it and as a result, leave themselves in the path of danger. We have had some very gullible BS' over the years. Some who been here for years tolerating abuse.
Posted By: Pepperband Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by iam
Maybe waywards should only post to waywards and betrayed to betrayed?

A few years back there was a thread where a few WW's pretty much posted exclusively to each other. It was a hot mess. They treated each other like victims - which is not unusual after a wayward gets caught. In their eyes, it was the perfect thread - they "validated" each other's feelings which was the most important goal for them, as opposed to seeking truth and taking steps to recover their marriages. (it turned out that two of the women posting was actually ONE woman posing as two or more posters .... but that's another story and NOT the point I want to make). The point I want to make is that waywards who are early in the process of recovering their marriage are not likely to get far into recovery without someone with more experience to push/coax them away from their "feelings" and consider the process.

And, if two or more recently betrayed spouses post exclusively to each other - they too will get bogged down with OP bashing and encourage each other to make a ton of emotional decisions which put their marriage deeper in the mud.

The process is the gold we mine here. The process is valid for WS and BS alike. The process works best under ideal situations

- longer marriage as opposed to brand new marriage
- history of many "good years"
-no previous adultery
-no other addictive behaviors
-no history of actual abuse
-no OC to deal with
-the affair lasted less than 3 years
-mental illness is not at play

Having said that, there have been recovered marriages that have one or more of the above list. My own for instance. My husband was a drinking alcoholic at D day. Kimmy's marriage has recovered 2 OC bumps in the road. etc.

The process can be taught. The way to effectively teach the process varies with the sort of ears the listener has. The WS or the BS can be equally vulnerable to emotional outbursts.

I've learned that if I take the time to assess a person's strengths - it gives me a starting point for teaching the process. That's why I ask questions before I get myself involved more than a few quick posts. I know that learning a person's strengths does not mean analyzing a person's background to death.

It is especially important not to dive too deeply into old issues during a crisis.


"Your house house is on fire - tell me about your relationship with your parents."

Doing this also gives the WS or BS an excuse to not apply the process - "I was abused as a child and I have intimacy issues." "Who cares! Your house is engulfed in flames - grab a hose and squirt!"

So - my point is to learn the process that MB offers - and to find a way to express it to others in need.

And guess what - the process is a great equalizer - the process is respectful - the process is empowering - actually working the process and sticking with it when tempted to veer off into emotional quicksand is how marriages get recoverd.

And isn't that the point?

Pep
Posted By: eeyoree Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:41 PM
Great post Pep. *applause from E.*

I am the FWW... and quite frankly I glean more from talking to BS than I do other FWWs. I don't want validation-- and I know that most other FWWs are going thru what I am-- we put ourselves here. Sometimes I look at other FWS threads to see what worked for them in particular situations-- but never, ever to commiserate.

I don't even know if I'd post anymore if I couldn't post to BSs. We all know "our" side of the tracks well. Its learning the other side of the tracks that will help in recovery...

E.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:43 PM
Originally Posted by Pepperband
A few years back there was a thread where a few WW's pretty much posted exclusively to each other. It was a hot mess. They treated each other like victims - which is not unusual after a wayward gets caught. In their eyes, it was the perfect thread - they "validated" each other's feelings which was the most important goal for them, as opposed to seeking truth and taking steps to recover their marriages.

A perfect example of the blind leading the blind......into the ditch. :eek:
Posted By: Pepperband Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:46 PM
And one more thought:

There is freedom here to post advice based solely and completely on one's personal opinion, which ignores the MB process.

I don't remember one single person who actually applied the process in their own life, and then reverting back to ignoring the process when handing out advice to others.

Once you've used the process - you pass it along because it helped you - even if your marriage did not make it - it helped you recover.

Pep
Posted By: introvert Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:47 PM
Originally Posted by eeyoree
Great post Pep. *applause from E.*

I am the FWW... and quite frankly I glean more from talking to BS than I do other FWWs. I don't want validation-- and I know that most other FWWs are going thru what I am-- we put ourselves here. Sometimes I look at other FWS threads to see what worked for them in particular situations-- but never, ever to commiserate.

I don't even know if I'd post anymore if I couldn't post to BSs. We all know "our" side of the tracks well. Its learning the other side of the tracks that will help in recovery...

E.

I agree wholeheartedly with eeyoree. If I were limited to communicating with BS's only, I'd stop posting. I would like to think that I could just hash out problems with fellow BS's, but I'm not naive enough to think that we wouldn't just end up WS bashing after a while.

I get a lot of information from communicating with FW's.
Posted By: A_pretty_face Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:51 PM
Not because I was once a WW or a BW I try to just give my 2 cents on what I went thru on both sides.

Pepperband, and JL were very helpful when I first came here.

I admire how everyone responds *in the good way* to reach out to both sides. Thats what this site is about. Helping a M recover not to degrade, not to accuse. And yeah somethings what is said ppl wont like. Thats there problem. If you cant take the heat then either you are to far out to reach, or you just dont want to hear it. Well guess what if you cant take it then dont give it out there to get responses too.

I love reading JL's post because yeah hes blunt to a point but makes clear points just like Melody does too. Medc is a straight talker and will lay it out there to open eyes up.

Everyone here has been hurt in one shape way or form. Isnt this site suppose to be a support group and full of resources to 'help'?

Everyone has there own writting techniques. If you do not like a situation you read then guess what move on, dont write to them and let them go and someone will come along and help them.

If it wasnt for MB my DH and I would probally be in our old ways. Fighting and bringing up addictions, both of our A's, etc.. We wouldnt be happy at all. Reading Dr Harleys articles and reading what you all post we have used here at home has made the recovery alot easier.

Thank you to the vets that have been around for a bit and are still helping those thru the healing process.
Posted By: committedandlovi Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:52 PM
Quote
A few years back there was a thread where a few WW's pretty much posted exclusively to each other. It was a hot mess. They treated each other like victims - which is not unusual after a wayward gets caught. In their eyes, it was the perfect thread - they "validated" each other's feelings which was the most important goal for them, as opposed to seeking truth and taking steps to recover their marriages. (it turned out that two of the women posting was actually ONE woman posing as two or more posters .... but that's another story and NOT the point I want to make). The point I want to make is that waywards who are early in the process of recovering their marriage are not likely to get far into recovery without someone with more experience to push/coax them away from their "feelings" and consider the process.

Shoot, if I remember correctly they talked about their OM and how much they missed them...how they were such a perfect match....how they got needs met by the OM...ad nauseum.

I thought I had stumbled into a forum on another site...if you know what I mean. crazy shocked

They routinely walked down memory lane and I would think "how is this even helping with their marriages?"

It is good that someone calls that kind of posting out.

committed

Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 02:58 PM
At least a couple of the WW's on that disgusting thread were in active affairs at the time. That thread was not about recovery, but about lowering the bar to make the unacceptable acceptable. "Validation," my hiney. I gave a couple of those gals "validation" with my Texas 2x4. laugh
Posted By: eeyoree Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:00 PM
Oi. How did the mods let that get by? Geez, I've seen far less destructive threads get locked down and/or moved or deleted.

I'm guessing the mod-police weren't in full force back then? It just seems that even if you only had ONE mod, that kinda thread if it persisted for more than a day, would get tossed!

And BTW-- the thought of OM right now makes me want to puke. Honestly, I AM GLAD there's NC. Quite frankly, if I saw him I might puke on his shoes. Just the mere thought of him right now is upsetting my stomach. So anyone that can sit there and reminisce about how great OM is-- is still foggy. Period. NC is a great "awakener" if you do it right-- and I don't even have to TRY to maintain NC anymore-- I WANT TO. And not just for my marriage. Because I quite frankly, HATE HIM. Even if my M went belly up, I'm pretty sure he'd either have a black eye, be missing a b@ll, or be wearing my puke if I ran into him....

E.

Originally Posted by committedandlovi
Quote
A few years back there was a thread where a few WW's pretty much posted exclusively to each other. It was a hot mess. They treated each other like victims - which is not unusual after a wayward gets caught. In their eyes, it was the perfect thread - they "validated" each other's feelings which was the most important goal for them, as opposed to seeking truth and taking steps to recover their marriages. (it turned out that two of the women posting was actually ONE woman posing as two or more posters .... but that's another story and NOT the point I want to make). The point I want to make is that waywards who are early in the process of recovering their marriage are not likely to get far into recovery without someone with more experience to push/coax them away from their "feelings" and consider the process.

Shoot, if I remember correctly they talked about their OM and how much they missed them...how they were such a perfect match....how they got needs met by the OM...ad nauseum.

I thought I had stumbled into a forum on another site...if you know what I mean. crazy shocked

They routinely walked down memory lane and I would think "how is this even helping with their marriages?"

It is good that someone calls that kind of posting out.

committed
Posted By: Pepperband Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:02 PM
Originally Posted by committedandlovi
It is good that someone calls that kind of posting out.

The better way, I think, is to shove the process at them at every opportunity - they hated me for not being sensitive to their feelings.

I ignored their feelings while trying to help their marriage - and once you sense that a persons feelings and emotions-run-amok are running the show - it's time to push the process harder - whilst wearing an asbestos suit. Venom will be spat. I've had my shots - venom doesn't worry me.

Pep
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:07 PM
Originally Posted by eeyoree
Because I quite frankly, HATE HIM.

E.

But the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference...you know that, right?

Given time, NC will accomplish indifference for you...it's not something you can work at, it will just come...

Mrs. W

Posted By: hu7668 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:08 PM
I am going to call a spade a spade, a lot of you are justifying reasons for being rude and nasty. Sure some people respond to that type of treatment, but when someone doesn't then you need a different tone. The notion of accept it or get out helps marriages how? Because tell you what if someone does not like your presentation style your message gets lost in the noise. Like it or not the "veterans" here are representing the MB principles and basically selling the ideas to people like me a WS. In business its NEVER the job of the customer to understand the ideas beginning presented it is always the job of the salesman to find a way to successfully sell the idea.

I am sure there are lots of WS's that come here look around and leave because of the tone of this site. You may not like WS's but we do need help like anyone else. Given the fact we maybe in withdrawal, fog, denial etc... selling the idea of staying with the M can be difficult at best.

Everyone here has valid opinions and ideas, just not to every audience. Pick and choose who is accepting of your presentation method since that gets the MB principles across and saves marriages which is supposed to be the point right.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:11 PM
Hu...

YOU are responsible for your decisions and choices, no one else...

You complain and complain about how very unhelpful MB is, and yet you are still here...

Interesting...

Mrs. W
Posted By: introvert Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:11 PM
Originally Posted by hu7668
I am going to call a spade a spade, a lot of you are justifying reasons for being rude and nasty. Sure some people respond to that type of treatment, but when someone doesn't then you need a different tone. The notion of accept it or get out helps marriages how? Because tell you what if someone does not like your presentation style your message gets lost in the noise. Like it or not the "veterans" here are representing the MB principles and basically selling the ideas to people like me a WS. In business its NEVER the job of the customer to understand the ideas beginning presented it is always the job of the salesman to find a way to successfully sell the idea.

I am sure there are lots of WS's that come here look around and leave because of the tone of this site. You may not like WS's but we do need help like anyone else. Given the fact we maybe in withdrawal, fog, denial etc... selling the idea of staying with the M can be difficult at best.

Everyone here has valid opinions and ideas, just not to every audience. Pick and choose who is accepting of your presentation method since that gets the MB principles across and saves marriages which is supposed to be the point right.

Have you told your wife about your affair yet?
Posted By: committedandlovi Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:13 PM
Quote
The better way, I think, is to shove the process at them at every opportunity - they hated me for not being sensitive to their feelings.

I remember that too. I think they had a few choice adjectives for you.

I noticed that you were rather insistent about bringing the topic back around to marriagebuilding. They didn't want any part of that. They just wanted someone to "understand" and "validate" them.

"Validation" is ranking near "closure" in the highly over-rated and overused arena, at least in my opinion. These catch phrases are all about warm fuzzies I guess. Guess I'm not a warm and fuzzy kinda girl. laugh

committed
Posted By: hu7668 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:18 PM
Originally Posted by MrsWondering
Hu...

YOU are responsible for your decisions and choices, no one else...

You complain and complain about how very unhelpful MB is, and yet you are still here...

Interesting...

Mrs. W

No I have never complained about how unhelpful MB is, I think the ideas are rock solid. I complain about the delivery method of a lot of the posters here. I do find good information here though from the posters who's delivery methods work for me.

See there is a difference between the folks here and the MB concepts, they are distinctly different.

How is my life going, not telling you folks. My personal life is my personal life at this point. I will continue to lurk, learn and question but active participation no thanks.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:19 PM
Originally Posted by hu7668
I am going to call a spade a spade, a lot of you are justifying reasons for being rude and nasty. Sure some people respond to that type of treatment, but when someone doesn't then you need a different tone. The notion of accept it or get out helps marriages how? Because tell you what if someone does not like your presentation style your message gets lost in the noise. Like it or not the "veterans" here are representing the MB principles and basically selling the ideas to people like me a WS. In business its NEVER the job of the customer to understand the ideas beginning presented it is always the job of the salesman to find a way to successfully sell the idea.

I am sure there are lots of WS's that come here look around and leave because of the tone of this site. You may not like WS's but we do need help like anyone else. Given the fact we maybe in withdrawal, fog, denial etc... selling the idea of staying with the M can be difficult at best.

Everyone here has valid opinions and ideas, just not to every audience. Pick and choose who is accepting of your presentation method since that gets the MB principles across and saves marriages which is supposed to be the point right.

HU, let's keep it real here. Not every wayward has been talked to exactly like you have. Because while foggy or entitled, at least some waywards still at least TRY to be honest with us when they come here, because they really want help. I believe you got extra 2x4s because you were playing games and telling lies and jerking chains, don't ya think?

It's rather disingenuous and not very nice, to come here and try and mess with our heads, and then act all wounded and victimish when we see through you!
Posted By: jayne241 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:19 PM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
And I will never understand how in the Bible it states that God loves the lost sheep more than the rest of His sheep. Why? I don't really want an answer to that, just stating one of the things that never really rang true for me. Amazing Grace used to be one of my favorite hymms, but now I think it is over romanticized when someone turns from being lost and finally finds their way home. It is far better in my opinion to never have been lost in the first place.

I've also struggled with understanding the reasoning of the Prodigal Son Parable. I want to share my current thoughts.

Disclaimer: I don't tell God what to think and I don't claim to know everything He thinks. laugh These are my own thoughts only and are not intended to represent theology.

As a mother of twins, I've occasionally been asked if I find myself loving one more than the other. My answer: "I love more whichever one needs me the most at that moment."

That doesn't mean that, integrated over all time, I LOVE (generally care for and want the best for) one more than the other. But at any given moment, I may love (actively act to care for) one more than the other, if one needs me more in that instance.
Posted By: eeyoree Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:19 PM
I do realize this. I guess maybe I didn't explain myself well. Its not like I sit around stewing about him-- on an everyday basis, he's not even a part of my life or my thought process, honestly. I really couldn't care much less where he is or what he's doing. I haven't seen him, and quite frankly have very little opportunities to see him. He may or may not even still live in the same city as me-- I'm honestly not sure-- he used to talk about how he wanted to move to another city 4 hours away, and half of me thinks he probably picked up and moved, and part of me thinks he's still in my city. I don't know, and don't really care that much. I think the only way I'd ever see him is if he IS still here, and by some freak chance I ran into him somewhere. But we live in opposite parts of my (large) city, so that is even somewhat unlikely-- and he's kinda a hermit crab that doesn't have much of a life, so that makes it even more unlikely shocked

I guess I think if I ran into him, I would have more of a visceral response to seeing him that would make me puke on him... a flooding back of how utterly stupid I was-- and blind. He certainly isn't prince charming-- (is anyone that would mess with a married woman? isn't that an oxymoron in the first place? but even beyond that, he's got some issues).

Maybe not so much I HATE HIM... more I hate what he represents? Is that better? I am indifferent towards him. Quite frankly, this post is the most thought I've given him in months and months and months. And even that he doesn't deserve sick

E.

Originally Posted by MrsWondering
Originally Posted by eeyoree
Because I quite frankly, HATE HIM.

E.

But the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference...you know that, right?

Given time, NC will accomplish indifference for you...it's not something you can work at, it will just come...

Mrs. W
Posted By: introvert Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:21 PM
Originally Posted by hu7668
Originally Posted by MrsWondering
Hu...

YOU are responsible for your decisions and choices, no one else...

You complain and complain about how very unhelpful MB is, and yet you are still here...

Interesting...

Mrs. W

No I have never complained about how unhelpful MB is, I think the ideas are rock solid. I complain about the delivery method of a lot of the posters here. I do find good information here though from the posters who's delivery methods work for me.

See there is a difference between the folks here and the MB concepts, they are distinctly different.

How is my life going, not telling you folks. My personal life is my personal life at this point. I will continue to lurk, learn and question but active participation no thanks.


What have you learned so far?
Posted By: introvert Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:22 PM
Originally Posted by keepitreal
Originally Posted by hu7668
I am going to call a spade a spade, a lot of you are justifying reasons for being rude and nasty. Sure some people respond to that type of treatment, but when someone doesn't then you need a different tone. The notion of accept it or get out helps marriages how? Because tell you what if someone does not like your presentation style your message gets lost in the noise. Like it or not the "veterans" here are representing the MB principles and basically selling the ideas to people like me a WS. In business its NEVER the job of the customer to understand the ideas beginning presented it is always the job of the salesman to find a way to successfully sell the idea.

I am sure there are lots of WS's that come here look around and leave because of the tone of this site. You may not like WS's but we do need help like anyone else. Given the fact we maybe in withdrawal, fog, denial etc... selling the idea of staying with the M can be difficult at best.

Everyone here has valid opinions and ideas, just not to every audience. Pick and choose who is accepting of your presentation method since that gets the MB principles across and saves marriages which is supposed to be the point right.

HU, let's keep it real here. Not every wayward has been talked to exactly like you have. Because while foggy or entitled, at least some waywards still at least TRY to be honest with us when they come here, because they really want help. I believe you got extra 2x4s because you were playing games and telling lies and jerking chains, don't ya think?

It's rather disingenuous and not very nice, to come here and try and mess with our heads, and then act all wounded and victimish when we see through you!

Bingo
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:23 PM
Originally Posted by jayne241
Originally Posted by JosieJones
And I will never understand how in the Bible it states that God loves the lost sheep more than the rest of His sheep. Why? I don't really want an answer to that, just stating one of the things that never really rang true for me. Amazing Grace used to be one of my favorite hymms, but now I think it is over romanticized when someone turns from being lost and finally finds their way home. It is far better in my opinion to never have been lost in the first place.

I've also struggled with understanding the reasoning of the Prodigal Son Parable. I want to share my current thoughts.

Disclaimer: I don't tell God what to think and I don't claim to know everything He thinks. laugh These are my own thoughts only and are not intended to represent theology.

As a mother of twins, I've occasionally been asked if I find myself loving one more than the other. My answer: "I love more whichever one needs me the most at that moment."

That doesn't mean that, integrated over all time, I LOVE (generally care for and want the best for) one more than the other. But at any given moment, I may love (actively act to care for) one more than the other, if one needs me more in that instance.

Excellent thoughts..makes sense to me!
Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:26 PM
Originally Posted by introvert
Have you told your wife about your affair yet?

He doesn't have the guts.

He doesn't love his wife enough.

He wants to hurt his children.

Take your pick.

I'll make it easy for you HU....Post her cell #, I'll do what you can't.
Posted By: hu7668 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:32 PM
Originally Posted by keepitreal
HU, let's keep it real here. Not every wayward has been talked to exactly like you have. Because while foggy or entitled, at least some waywards still at least TRY to be honest with us when they come here, because they really want help. I believe you got extra 2x4s because you were playing games and telling lies and jerking chains, don't ya think?

It's rather disingenous and not very nice, to come here and try and mess with our heads, and then act all wounded and victimish when we see through you!

I have watched in the last few days the same thing happen to other WS that happened to me. They got jumped on from the beginning some stayed some did not. So sorry not the only person I have seen the approved method here run someone off.

On my thread I wanted information, but I got jumped on and got defensive. Once that happens I don't care what the message is I was not going to listen. I am not going to take rude and abusive behavior from some anonymous people on the internet.

Now I stayed around here lurking and learning. Actually a lot of the information has helped. But direct interaction with BS here as a WS with my personality is counter productive. My wife has all the rights in the world to yell or scream at me. But no one on an internet forum has the same rights.

That's my point just because somone is a WS does not mean they are your WS. So you don't get the rights to treat any and all WS how want and expect them to take it. If you really want to push the MB principles you find the most effective way to reach the audience.
Posted By: committedandlovi Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:34 PM
Quote
I am going to call a spade a spade, a lot of you are justifying reasons for being rude and nasty.

I guess the truth is something you consider rude and nasty?

I don't consider it rude and nasty.

I do consider deceptive posting practices as rude.

I do consider having other sexual partners while MARRIED quite nasty....epecially when the BS doesn't know and the WS refuses to tell them.

Now...that is nasty behavior.

Nasty can defined as vicious, spiteful, or ugly:

Can't get much nastier in my book.

committed
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:35 PM
Originally Posted by hu7668
So you don't get the rights to treat any and all WS how want and expect them to take it. If you really want to push the MB principles you find the most effective way to reach the audience.

Would you like a hankie for your tears, sweetie? laugh
Posted By: hu7668 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:35 PM
Originally Posted by iam
Originally Posted by introvert
Have you told your wife about your affair yet?

He doesn't have the guts.

He doesn't love his wife enough.

He wants to hurt his children.

Take your pick.

I'll make it easy for you HU....Post her cell #, I'll do what you can't.

Dude you don't like me start another thread.

I don't have to justify anything to you people. How I am now conducting my life is my business not yours.

For this thread I have obviously hit a nerve (with some of you) since the topic has changed from the delivery of the MB message to me. Try to stay on topic or start another thread.

Would like to thank the previous 3 posters for proving my point. Why would a WS want to come here for help?
Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:36 PM
Originally Posted by hu7668
[I am not going to take rude and abusive behavior from some anonymous people on the internet.

My wife has all the rights in the world to yell or scream at me.

Blah Blah Blah sick

But your wife has to take your abuse!

Then let her yell and scream...confess your affair.
Posted By: introvert Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:38 PM
Originally Posted by hu7668
Originally Posted by keepitreal
HU, let's keep it real here. Not every wayward has been talked to exactly like you have. Because while foggy or entitled, at least some waywards still at least TRY to be honest with us when they come here, because they really want help. I believe you got extra 2x4s because you were playing games and telling lies and jerking chains, don't ya think?

It's rather disingenous and not very nice, to come here and try and mess with our heads, and then act all wounded and victimish when we see through you!

I have watched in the last few days the same thing happen to other WS that happened to me. They got jumped on from the beginning some stayed some did not. So sorry not the only person I have seen the approved method here run someone off.

On my thread I wanted information, but I got jumped on and got defensive. Once that happens I don't care what the message is I was not going to listen. I am not going to take rude and abusive behavior from some anonymous people on the internet.

Now I stayed around here lurking and learning. Actually a lot of the information has helped. But direct interaction with BS here as a WS with my personality is counter productive. My wife has all the rights in the world to yell or scream at me. But no one on an internet forum has the same rights.

That's my point just because somone is a WS does not mean they are your WS. So you don't get the rights to treat any and all WS how want and expect them to take it. If you really want to push the MB principles you find the most effective way to reach the audience.

What is it that your wife yells and screams about? It couldn;t be about your affair, because Mr. Toughguy is to chickensh!t to tell her.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:38 PM
Originally Posted by hu7668
Originally Posted by keepitreal
HU, let's keep it real here. Not every wayward has been talked to exactly like you have. Because while foggy or entitled, at least some waywards still at least TRY to be honest with us when they come here, because they really want help. I believe you got extra 2x4s because you were playing games and telling lies and jerking chains, don't ya think?

It's rather disingenous and not very nice, to come here and try and mess with our heads, and then act all wounded and victimish when we see through you!



On my thread I wanted information, but I got jumped on and got defensive. Once that happens I don't care what the message is I was not going to listen. I am not going to take rude and abusive behavior from some anonymous people on the internet.

Wow, that says a lot about you right there! I could just picture a 4 year old stomping his little foot and saying "I'm not going to listen!"

Is this how you treat your wife? Trying to make it HER FAULT when you choose to break your vows?

And FWIW, I'm thinking playing deceptive games with a board full of people trying to help build marriages, is much more rude and abusive behavior than talking to you straight, as if you were a big boy.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:39 PM
Ahem, HU, *I*, as a FWS, gave you a pretty hard line myself once I saw that you were not serious about doing what is NECESSARY...What is MANDATORY actually...

So YOU stop trying to take YOUR ANGER out at the BSs here-You are doing EXACTLY what you are accusing them of!!! And it is NOT just them that see what you are doing as horrid and wrong...

HONESTY is the solution to your situation HU...PERIOD...No amount of commiserating at that other site will fix this astrocity you've created...No amount of raging here will fix it either...

TELL YOUR WIFE...

Mrs. W
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:42 PM
Be a MAN, HU7668. Tell your wife the truth. Attacking people on this forum for telling you what you don't want to hear is not manly nor will it help your marriage.

Tell your wife the truth, HU.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:46 PM
Quote
Why would a WS want to come here for help?

Because it works...

Because people holding up a mirror to show you how ugly you are being is a GREAT thing...

Because commiseration does one thing only...keeps you and everyone around you MISERABLE...

Because there are PLANS here...

Because when you choose to pull your head out of your heiney, you will see this is the BEST way...

You are choosing to BLAME the messagers for TELLING you how horrible your behavior is...INSTEAD of blaming YOURSELF for your horrible behavior...

What is worse HU, words that describe the travesty and selfishness of adultery or the adultery itself?

There is no way to pretty up adultery...It's UGLY...

Mrs. W
Posted By: introvert Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:49 PM
Man, I've seen it all now. Here, we have a guy who pretended to be his wife (who he is too afraid to even talk to, and obviously couldn't fill her shoes if he tried), telling us how we don't act approprietly(sp)......what a tool.

*edit* Hu.....your wife won't end up there with you, just so you know.
Posted By: hu7668 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:50 PM
Originally Posted by MrsWondering
Quote
Why would a WS want to come here for help?

Because it works...

Because people holding up a mirror to show you how ugly you are being is a GREAT thing...

Because comisseration does one thing only...keeps you and everyone around you MISERABLE...

Because there are PLANS here...

Because when you choose to pull your head out of your heiney, you will see this is the BEST way...

You are choosing to BLAME the messagers for TELLING you how horrible your behavior is...INSTEAD of blaming YOURSELF for your horrible behavior...

What is worse HU, words that describe the travesty and selfishness of adultery or the adultery itself?

There is no way to pretty up adultery...It's UGLY...

Mrs. W

See I agree with, never have argued that now have I?

I am not choosing to blame the messengers for telling me how horrible my behavior is. They were all right.

My responses on this thread are not about me (no matter how hard you guys try to make) I am posting general observations about posting styles and how effective and not effective they are.

If a posting style is not working with a particular WS then guess what change the style or don't post. Since your message will be lost in the emotions and noise caused by the insistence that your way is the only way.
Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:53 PM
Let us know how it feels once some other man is reading your kids bedtime stories and calling him daddy. sick

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Kinda like posting to you. Guess I'm insane.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:53 PM
It's not up to you to decide style for someone else HU...

How do you know that their style isn't helping them or someone else reading?

Swimming upstream is tough going and won't help you or your wife...

What is your plan for that?

Mrs. W
Posted By: introvert Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:53 PM
Hu, you have stated that you do like a few posters here, and agree with their styles. But, yet you still ignore what the underlying message is from those very people of whom you appreciate their styles.....TELL YOUR WIFE !!!!

But, I guess you won't like my style, so you don't have to read about this obvious observation, right?..... crazy
Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:54 PM
It seems to me that a great deal of wayward spouses understand that they are the cause of great harm to their family. They come here fogged into all of their reckless rationalizations that we are so familiar with. They come to examine their initial premises that lead them to make their sad choices. It is the first step in saving a lost love. Our simple explanations of what life and love really entail slowly washes away their misguided rationalizations to help save their marriage. It is a heartwarming event to witness it happening.

Sadly, many are chased from these pages by the venomous replies of still hurting betrayed spouses. Once they leave, they seldom return.

I have come to find that the wayward spouses that participate to help save their marriage are often times scared much deeper than their betrayed spouses typically realize. Whatā€™s more, their betrayal of their family is difficult for them to ever forget. How could they have been so foolish? They often see themselves as deeply flawed and unworthy of ever being forgiven. It seems that many are simply biding their time as they wait for their betrayed partner to muster the courage to finely leave them. What a terrible way to live a life, wasted and in fear. I canā€™t help but feel great empathy for these kinds of wayward spouses and a melancholy sadness for their betrayed partners.

I canā€™t help but wonder if a major failing in the effort to recover is the failing of a great many betrayed spouses desire to forgive their partner. Sure, they say the words, they write their posts of forgiveness but behind it all they hold on to the trump card and they make sure that their partner knows they have it by occasionally flashing a glimpse of it, here or there. If things donā€™t go quite right there is the unspoken threat that they may play that card, ā€œYOU CHEATED ON ME.ā€ There is no counter play.

It is a play on ā€œrevenge and resentmentā€ that is directed to the one they claim to love. Well folks, thatā€™s not love.

I think I believe that the final step in recovery is when a betrayed spouse just becomes a ā€œspouseā€. Unfortunately, there seems to be a great many betrayed spouses who will NEVER let that title go. It has become a part of how they define themselves, who they are and where they came from. They keep it as a reminder that there is a debt owed to them that unfortunately can never be fully repaid to their satisfaction. But whatā€™s worse is that they have inadvertently branded their partner with a scarlet letter.

There was an incident in this forum about a year ago where I was doling out some advice to a newly arrived wayward spouse. This person was still in a thin fog but had enough guts to venture here and ask a few questions. They were the textbook type questions that kind of define what Marriage Builders is all about; still to a wayward spouse the answers cause them to peer into their looking glass, the perfect opportunity. But before that could happen, a string of responses chastised this person with pointed accusations describing why they were the dregs of humanity. Along with this wayward spouse, I too became a target for aiding the enemy. It was then that I was paid a great compliment. I was accused of being a wayward spouse myself. Well folks, to this long ago betrayed spouse, that was some compliment even though it was delivered as a dagger. It meant that my recovery had progressed beyond the bounds of ā€œwaywardā€ and ā€œbetrayedā€. That tragic piece of history no longer defined me and whatā€™s more I didnā€™t even notice that it had happened.

It is unfortunate that the wayward spouse that was chased from here may never get the opportunity that I was so fortunate to experience.

Mr. G
Posted By: c00per Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:57 PM


Quote
If a posting style is not working with a particular WS then guess what change the style or don't post. Since your message will be lost in the emotions and noise caused by the insistence that your way is the only way.

Please email me.

coop.r.mb@gmail.com

c00per
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 03:57 PM
HU...

Can you please explain to me what it is that you think handing you "pat pats" and "bless your hearts" will do to help your victim?

How will that even help you?

Your behavior is abhorable...To begin to fix this mess you must tell your wife...It's really that simple...

There is no need to sit around and yammer on about the whys and what fors...You simply DO the right thing...

What part of that is hard to understand?

Mrs. W
Posted By: mimi_here Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 04:01 PM
I REALLY AGREE WITH YOUR POST, MR. GOODSTUFF.

My H is that type of WAYWARD that you speak of..who was PAINED and SHAMED by his affair...and really, really needed to know that I WOULD AND COULD FORGIVE HIM before returning..and I have and he is now MY HUSBAND...whom I LOVE dearly...I NEVER STOPPED...
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 04:05 PM
Quote
It is unfortunate that the wayward spouse that was chased from here may never get the opportunity that I was so fortunate to experience. Mr. G


Actually that particular WS has become a FWS and still posts here...

If memory serves correctly, that poster is Apharesis (formerly Aphrodite)...She stayed because she wanted HELP Mr. G...That is what happens when someone really and truly wants help...They will choose to stay...No one "runs off" the ones that are sincere...

Mrs. W

Posted By: not2fun Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 04:21 PM
Originally Posted by _Larry_
Originally Posted by medc
I think I agree with your whole post.

Which brings up something else. For me, I don't really care if someone agrees with me or not, it is the getting them to think that is important. "I think" means to me that someone is using their brain cells instead of acting emotionally. Thinking may not always work, but it beats the consequences of not thinking, right? Thanks medc, you triggered the last of what I wanted to say.

Larry

To ME...(and its all about ME.... grin)...

This post sums up MB to a T. I did not always agree with some who had posted on here BUT they ALWAYS made me think. Which was what I needed those early days. I came here for support, which I got in spades, and I came here to learn, which I am continually doing.

not2fun
Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 04:26 PM
Quote
My H is that type of WAYWARD that you speak of..who was PAINED and SHAMED by his affair...and really, really needed to know that I WOULD AND COULD FORGIVE HIM before returning..and I have and he is now MY HUSBAND...whom I LOVE dearly...I NEVER STOPPED...
**sniff** Ainā€™t love a beautiful thingā€¦

Mr. G
Posted By: eeyoree Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 04:28 PM
Oi. This sums up my M right now. 2 years from D-day. Thank you for this Mr. G.

And if you're still hanging around this thread and want to check out mine, please do so. This is where my M is-- my H has the trump card, and he's holding onto it for DEAR LIFE. What he doesn't see is it is that trump card making him miserable and destroying our M now... not either one of our A's anymore. And yes, I may have handed him that card... but it doesn't make it right to cling to it for dear life.

I fear that trump card may actually be the demise of our M.

E.

Originally Posted by Mr. Goodstuff
I have come to find that the wayward spouses that participate to help save their marriage are often times scared much deeper than their betrayed spouses typically realize. Whatā€™s more, their betrayal of their family is difficult for them to ever forget. How could they have been so foolish? They often see themselves as deeply flawed and unworthy of ever being forgiven. It seems that many are simply biding their time as they wait for their betrayed partner to muster the courage to finely leave them. What a terrible way to live a life, wasted and in fear. I canā€™t help but feel great empathy for these kinds of wayward spouses and a melancholy sadness for their betrayed partners.

I canā€™t help but wonder if a major failing in the effort to recover is the failing of a great many betrayed spouses desire to forgive their partner. Sure, they say the words, they write their posts of forgiveness but behind it all they hold on to the trump card and they make sure that their partner knows they have it by occasionally flashing a glimpse of it, here or there. If things donā€™t go quite right there is the unspoken threat that they may play that card, ā€œYOU CHEATED ON ME.ā€ There is no counter play.

It is a play on ā€œrevenge and resentmentā€ that is directed to the one they claim to love. Well folks, thatā€™s not love.

Mr. G
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 04:37 PM
Excellent post, Mr. Goodstuff.

Quote
They were the textbook type questions that kind of define what Marriage Builders is all about; still to a wayward spouse the answers cause them to peer into their looking glass, the perfect opportunity. But before that could happen, a string of responses chastised this person with pointed accusations describing why they were the dregs of humanity.
I find it disheartening when that happens. I just don't see the need to name call or, worse imho, tell someone that they should just commit suicide shortly after posting their first post.

When I first arrived here, I was in so much pain and confusion that I had trouble communicating in writing what kind of help I was looking for. I probably would have become hopeless if someone had accused me of being a Troll and then told me to commit suicide for not "getting it" fast enough or responding the way they thought was "acceptable" soon enough. Thank God those people (if there were any like that back then) simply chose to not post to me instead of attacking or berating me.

I believe that the TOS applies to all of us whether we are the Betrayed or the Wayward, whether we are in the recovery process or just starting to maybe consider recovery, whether our own issues are triggered or not. And I believe that it is our responsibilty to post according to the TOS even when we feel justified in not doing so.

Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 04:50 PM
Quote
Actually that particular WS has become a FWS and still posts here...

Well, that is pleasant news to read. I had forgotten her handle. Thanks for the update.

Next in line please.

Quote
She stayed because she wanted HELP Mr. G...

That is the precise reason that most everyone stays, for help, advice, guidance and understanding.

Quote
That is what happens when someone really and truly wants help...They will choose to stay...No one "runs off" the ones that are sincere...

You will never know just how legitimate your hypothesis is, since the wayward spouses who are chased off these pages are either ā€œwasted effortsā€ or ā€œlost opportunitiesā€ but you donā€™t know which. I view them all as ā€œnew opportunitiesā€ when they first arrive no matter how fogged out they are, knowing in advance that many of them have no desire to be enlightened by the likes of me and I am very much OK with that. No one hits a homerun every time they step to the plate.

Mr. G


Posted By: _Larry_ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 04:52 PM
HU:

Normally I get along with WS as the discourse travels the path of learning. I do sales for a living and there is a grain of truth to what you say. Where I depart from that mode is when I feel that a WS is jerking my chain. As a salesman, I am pretty good at the feel of a potential customer who is gaming me; is lying to me or themselves or has some other sort of hangup that indicates a waste of time on my part.

I bailed on your thread because in my opinion, you were handing out polished cowflop on a tray and calling it in effect, "Shooting the messenger because you didn't like the message."

See I am a big believer in conventional wisdom, those things that women automatically know about other women and what men know about other males. Something you said told me I was wasting my time, so I didn't yell at you, I just said, in effect, "Baloney," and left.

So now I am going to waste my time taking you to the woodshed. I do so in the spirit of this thread. Although thread jacking happens all the time around here, I try to avoid it.

Here goes:

There are three things you need to understand. The first is that a large part of your attitude is justification. By this I mean that when you look at yourself in the mirror, you don't want to see a scumbag. Or if you do, you use a process called cognitive dissonance to kiss it and make it better. You spin what you did in the best Washington tradition. Others who have walked in your shoes "Feel" that you are gaming yourself, so they react according to their personality.

"Walked in your shoes" is an interesting concept. It carries along the basic concept of "Humanity." And that concept is what I want to talk about next.

See, all guys KNOW that screwing another man's wife is the worst thing you can do to that other guy. I meam ALL guys know it. It comes from having testicles. Yet guys do it all the time, up to and including socalled "Best friends." And many of those same guys spend the rest of their life carrying around the thought "I screwed your wife," with a smirk. Oh, guys do this thing in their mind like telling themselves that the female was "Looking for it," so why not me instead of some other dude.

Which of course ignores the basic humanity of the betrayed male. And of course, those who would, carry around the "Never happen to me" or the equally famous "Only if I were neglecting my wife," stuff.

In the pecking order of males, guys who have an honor system and who would thus not allow themselves to screw another man's wife, look down on a male who would. Since you would, this irritates you. You hate being looked down on, yet there it is and there is nothing you can do about it except posture. That isn't totally accurate, you can do something about it, but that would mean admitting certain things about yourself and changing yourself in ways you find uncomfortable, given that self change is ALWAYS uncomfortable and needs heavy reason. And it takes time and more introspection than you might want to give to the subject.

See there is also the male conventional wisdom that "right place, right guy, right time," and any woman can be had. This sets up conflicts in the male's mind and some guys use their honor system to resolve the situation and others use their erection. Guys understand the nature has played a joke on humanity. Without understanding the chemical basis of PEA, guys know that many women can be overwhelmed with their craving for that methlike high and thus can be had.

And now we go to the meat of the matter; consequences. A guy knows that a smart male wouldn't screw jail bait if they lay in the floor pointing at it. The consequences are too horrific, yet it happens and so does the consequences. Tons of rationalization goes on in that arena and juries are NOT sympathetic. The thought of getting shot deters some males from doing another guy's wife. Christian beliefs, the Gold Rule, love of your own family, and a host of other reasons and thoughts of consequences make up something that is called an "Honor system," in this area of humanity.

Some just call it "Growing up." In other words, acting as a responsible adult. Some guys make the grade and others just make excuses. Immature guys have this thing called "following" another guy. Some guys don't care (new to me) and others barf at the thought of following a guy you know into a female. But if you don't know the guy, you can anonymize the other guy and it is ok. So the immature guy allows himself to go into a willing female with the thought that he doesn't know who has been there before him, so it is ok. The level of connection is sex, not humanity.

Here is the part a grownup knows: to deny the humanity of someone you don't know for the purposes of gratifying your own lust, denys your own humanity. This is the third point.

Guys know that honor systems are developed out of consequences. If there were no consequences, none of us would have an honor system. Being a grownup means understanding real consequences, not the ones we make up in our minds. We accept our humanity instead of rejecting it. If our wife cheats, we try (once) to honor our vows and make it right. And we don't commit adultery even if they lay there and point at it.

HU, you are either a troll or someone who is looking for the magic bullt. I dunno which, all I know is that you are dodging and weaving instead of confronting whatever is inside yourself. I know because I am another guy and I can smell it on you.

You fix this by looking in the mirror and see a scumbag. Then you decide that you don't want to be a scumbag. And you change yourself with an honor system. You cringe at the thought of what you did to the other guy. You take well meaning advice from anonymous people because you know that anyone at anytime can impart wisdom, even if you don't know that other person.

And life goes on.

Larry
Posted By: _Larry_ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:00 PM
Originally Posted by MrsWondering
Quote
It is unfortunate that the wayward spouse that was chased from here may never get the opportunity that I was so fortunate to experience. Mr. G


Actually that particular WS has become a FWS and still posts here...

If memory serves correctly, that poster is Apharesis (formerly Aphrodite)...She stayed because she wanted HELP Mr. G...That is what happens when someone really and truly wants help...They will choose to stay...No one "runs off" the ones that are sincere...

Mrs. W

Correct Mrs. W. I am the guy who got her to post here, refugee from another forum where I used to post. She is doing ok, and has regained her humanity. She is still in a difficult situation, but coping. And she still posts here both to her own thread and to others from time to time.

Which leads me to:

Quote
I think I believe that the final step in recovery is when a betrayed spouse just becomes a ā€œspouseā€. Unfortunately, there seems to be a great many betrayed spouses who will NEVER let that title go. It has become a part of how they define themselves, who they are and where they came from. They keep it as a reminder that there is a debt owed to them that unfortunately can never be fully repaid to their satisfaction. But whatā€™s worse is that they have inadvertently branded their partner with a scarlet letter.

For me, that paragraph dictates my forward feelings and always has. Mr. G done good there.

Larry
Posted By: rprynne Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:06 PM
I marvel at these threads. Why do we put so much responsiblity on the those that respond as opposed to those that ask? There is no doubt in my mind that those that truly want help will find it here regardless of the stlye or technique used. The ones that "run off" weren't looking for help.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by Mr. Goodstuff
Quote
That is what happens when someone really and truly wants help...They will choose to stay...No one "runs off" the ones that are sincere...

You will never know just how legitimate your hypothesis is, since the wayward spouses who are chased off these pages are either ā€œwasted effortsā€ or ā€œlost opportunitiesā€ but you donā€™t know which. I view them all as ā€œnew opportunitiesā€ when they first arrive no matter how fogged out they are, knowing in advance that many of them have no desire to be enlightened by the likes of me and I am very much OK with that. No one hits a homerun every time they step to the plate.

Mr. G

Ahhhh, but actually you will never know yours either...

HOWEVER...

I can speak from the experience of once being a foggy wayward that came here, posted my foggy ideas and got 2x4ed...Which made me THINK and GET ANGRY...Which caused me to ENGAGE and ARGUE...And one by one my "foggy points" were consistently refuted, so I learned...I got humble...I got helped...If I hadn't truly wanted help, then I wouldn't have stayed, and you better believe I would have blamed that choice on others...that is the nature of the wayward beast after all...Hey, I even got called a TROLL, and still I persisted...Those that want help will choose to get it...

Show me a wayward that is complaining of being "run off" the MB forums, and I will show you someone that is choosing to remain fogbound and has no genuine desire to be helped and change...

Mrs. W
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:08 PM
Originally Posted by rprynne
I marvel at these threads. Why do we put so much responsiblity on the those that respond as opposed to those that ask? There is no doubt in my mind that those that truly want help will find it here regardless of the stlye or technique used. The ones that "run off" weren't looking for help.

ABSOLUTELY Rprynne!

Mrs. W
Posted By: WhoMe Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:09 PM
HU,

Most of the folks here have said it already, twice, but...

Quote
I can say I am applying MB principles to save my marriage, which is the point right?

Honest, rather than posting here right now, why don't you read the free material on infidelity here on the site with a truly open mind.

You see, you can't really apply MB principles to save your marriage if you haven't taken the important step of being honest with your wife by telling her of your affair.

Who
Posted By: _Larry_ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:13 PM
Mrs. W:

Quote
Show me a wayward that is complaining of being "run off" the MB forums, and I will show you someone that is choosing to remain fogbound and has no genuine desire to be helped and change...

This is basic truth. Yet at the same time, please don't ignore the basic (conventional wisdom) differences between females and males and that is:

When confronted by adversity, females first try to change themselves to cope. They internalize.

When confronted by adversity, males try to change their environment to cope. They externalize.

As the Marines might say, women need 2X4 to HELP them change themselves and males need 2X4 to MAKE them change.

Larry

Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:16 PM
I'll give that some thought Larry, and discuss it with Mr. W...interesting...

Thanks!

Mrs. W
Posted By: A_pretty_face Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:16 PM
Hu,

I have held it in enough. YOU are a WS and YOU are hurting your BW and children. If you are applying the MB ways at home, isnt one way to tell your spouse of the A???

dear dear you arent applying them at home if you cant be honest with her. please cry me a river.

I have done nothing but learn from people on here. And I was out of the fog when I arrived.

Mr G great post btw.

Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:18 PM
Quote
Quote
You will never know just how legitimate your hypothesis is, since the wayward spouses who are chased off these pages are either ā€œwasted effortsā€ or ā€œlost opportunitiesā€ but you donā€™t know which. I view them all as ā€œnew opportunitiesā€ when they first arrive no matter how fogged out they are, knowing in advance that many of them have no desire to be enlightened by the likes of me and I am very much OK with that. No one hits a homerun every time they step to the plate.
Ahhhh, but actually you will never know yours either...

TouchƩ Mrs. Wondering, TouchƩ.

Quote
HOWEVER...

I can speak from the experience of once being a foggy wayward that came here, posted my foggy ideas and got 2x4ed...Which made me THINK and GET ANGRY...Which caused me to ENGAGE and ARGUE...And one by one my "foggy points" were consistently refuted, so I learned...I got humble...I got helped...If I hadn't truly wanted help, then I wouldn't have stayed, and you better believe I would have blamed that choice on others...that is the nature of the wayward beast after all...Hey, I even got called a TROLL, and still I persisted...Those that want help will choose to get it...

You came here with a measure of resolve and helped to save your marriage.

Quote
Show me a wayward that is complaining of being "run off" the MB forums, and I will show you someone that is choosing to remain fogbound and has no genuine desire to be helped and change...

Perhaps you were such a person at one time. Alas, I donā€™t know the details of Mr. Wondering and your travels. Suffice to say, you are both an excellent example of a marriage saved. I wish you nothing but the best.

Mr. G
Posted By: not2fun Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:22 PM
Originally Posted by rprynne
I marvel at these threads. Why do we put so much responsiblity on the those that respond as opposed to those that ask? There is no doubt in my mind that those that truly want help will find it here regardless of the stlye or technique used. The ones that "run off" weren't looking for help.


AMEN TO THAT ONE..... laugh


not2fun
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:26 PM
Quote
Suffice to say, you are both an excellent example of a marriage saved. I wish you nothing but the best.

Mr. G

Thanks much Mr. G! The sentiment is wholeheartedly returned! smile

Mrs. W
Posted By: _Larry_ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:31 PM
Originally Posted by MrsWondering
I'll give that some thought Larry, and discuss it with Mr. W...interesting...

Thanks!

Mrs. W

You are welcome. And while we are on the subject, it seems to me that you stood by Mr. W. (knowing or not) when he was exercising his immaturity by catting around before you got married and thus helped him become an adult. He did the same when you came out of the chrysalis. There is equity there.

Congratulations to you both.

Larry
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:33 PM
Josie:

Quote
All I need to know about something that doesn't work is that it doesn't work.

I used 2 think this, 2 (and I apologize if that sounds patronizing, it's not meant 2). Ironically, I'm dialed in 2 a telecon about mistakes and failures, and what we can learn from them.

In my business, if we don't understand what caused a multi-hundred million dollar vehicle 2 crash, we run the very real risk of having another one do the same. One of these didn't even tell us what was going wrong, and we still haven't found the wreckage. We got "lucky" in some regards, that its successor was so successful, though the builders went 2 great lengths 2 make sure that any even2ality was considered in testing.

When airliners blow up and crash in the ocean, failure analysts pick up the pieces and try 2 determine the cause.

Similarly, BSs need 2 do some Marriage Failure Analysis 2 determine what was wrong with their marriage that led the WS 2 make the decision 2 cheat rather than work with their spouse on the problem.

I simply found that, although I learned a lot from my BS friends here about how 2 apply MB or other marriage recovery methods, I didn't learn diddly-squat about what my W was thinking or why she was behaving the way she did in sufficient detail from other BSs 2 make a whole lot of headway with her.


Quote
If I want to change my life I need to understand what people who have successful lives do to become successful. Not how unsuccessful people get that way.

Certainly, I agree. Followed by:

Quote
But had I been married to someone I loved and who was once a good person, than I suppose I would have had to understood in order to want to try and rebuild with them. You would have to in order to have faith that whatever it was could be undone.

My W has always been a good person. She just made a selfish choice and embraced bad behaviors. Now she's abandoning those bad behaviors and we're finding the love we used 2 enjoy. But I don't think I would have gotten here if I hadn't tried 2 understand 2 some degree what goes on in the fogbound wayward mind while we were still not communicating well after d-day.

Truth is, I just don't have a dog in this fight anymore. When I read Mr Goodstuff's post, I realized that I must have dropped the additional labels (beyond just W and just H) a long time ago without realizing it, perhaps.

And now it's time for the next phase of our journey.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: A_pretty_face Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 05:37 PM
See there is success at MB!!! Take Mrs W and her beloved H. Look at Pepperband and some others.

MB and the people who post here didnt run me off, didnt run my H off. We stayed we took in what was dished out to us. We learned and followed and still learning. I can not say we are recovered all the way but we are well on our way to being recovered.

Did you know he came clean of his addiction because of MB? He originally came to MB I believe because of my A.*I was out of the fog already, but he came for more help with me* I came to MB because of orignially his addiction and then brough fourth his revenge A.

So HU, and the others that feel MB posters are harsh is because I feel that you do not like the truth being dished out to you. If you have been reading for a bit before posting then you should have known 2X4's were going to fly your way.

Posted By: Tabby1 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 06:15 PM
I believe I've learned something new in this thread. I used to be concerned when WS's were "run off" by aggressively applied 2x4's. But thanks to Mr. G and Mrs. W's posts above, I can see that's not the case at all. It is clear that not all waywards are the same. Typing this out, I wonder why I didn't understand this before since it is so obvious. Some are remorseful right away. Some become remorseful when discovered or exposed (Plan A). Still others reach this point when the A desintigrates later and they realize the BS is doing fine without them (Plan B). And the rest either never do, or do so after it's too late.

So which ones come here? On their own, they probably fall under one of the first 2 categories and feel some guilt or shame of some sort. Or they were dragged here by their BS's and don't really feel any true remorse at all. I suspect Hu is in the 4th category above and I can't for the life of me figure out what he's doing here. In his first thread, I tried to speak rationally without emotion to him in an effort to help. Now I can see he doesn't want help. If the 2x4's run him off, it had nothing to do with the method of delivery.
Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 08:00 PM
Quote
I realized that I must have dropped the additional labels (beyond just W and just H) a long time ago without realizing it, perhaps.

Bravo, 2-long, Bravo

I think that many believe that when they achieve recovery, I will be a monumental day as significant as any day ever was but brace yourself kids; recovery is a process not an event. It occurs in small doses. There are no marching bands to signify its arrival. When you finally walk across that finish line donā€™t be surprised if it eludes you altogether, there will be no trumpets blaring.

Mr. G
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 08:03 PM
I would respectfully ask you to remember that this thread was started by an FWW. Me.

I know I have no control over what is said here - I've been very interested in the replies - but I recall that (in the past anyway) the thread starter was allowed a little control over the content of their own thread.

I don't ask people to leave my threads - I'm always open to all discussion - I just ask you to remember that I, an FWW, started this thread.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 08:12 PM
Tabby...from my personal experience on this board, there is a 5th type that shows up here on occasion. There have been some WS that have showed up here to rub their affairs in the face of people that are hurting. Some of them are in a supposed "marriage" that started off as an affair (and are now being cheated on)....others are just plain rude and venture over from the wayward sites just to cause trouble (hey, no one ever said way-wards are a character driven bunch).

Much can be learned for sure from the likes of TST and Mrs. W's on this board. And while I do not begin to understand the logic Mark mentioned earlier (about respecting a recovered adulterer MORE than someone that never strayed...he used a more broad stroke covering many moral issues) I do think these people are due our utmost respect for what they have brought to MB and their marriages (obviously post affair).
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 08:18 PM
Originally Posted by medc
Much can be learned for sure from the likes of TST and Mrs. W's on this board.

And why not from me? MEDC, I am an FWW, I'm so much an FWW I don't even think of myself as one. I'm just me.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 08:20 PM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Originally Posted by medc
Much can be learned for sure from the likes of TST and Mrs. W's on this board.

And why not from me? MEDC, I am an FWW, I'm so much an FWW I don't even think of myself as one. I'm just me.

you ask a question I will give you an honest answer. I DO think people could learn from you...BUT, I would not hold you out as an example (although I did say the LIKES of TST and Mrs W...YOU excluded yourself). One reason I wouldn't cite you as an example would be that you had a second affair I think it was 4 years after the first. To me, that pushes things way too far. Another reason is that I believe...and I may be wrong about this...that you have been supportive of affair marriages being discussed on the active pages of this site. Quiet honestly, if that is the case, I find that to be incredibly insensitive and a bit rude coming from a FWS. If a BS on this site is negatively impacted by that, one would hope that a FWS would be sensitive enough to the damage such a spectacle could cause to new and even established BS. IMHO, a FWS should defer to the wishes of the BS in these cases. Just my opinion though.

other than that...despite you attempts for years here to tell others how to post...I really don't have any issues with you.
Posted By: faithful follower Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 08:29 PM
Quote
longer marriage as opposed to brand new marriage
- history of many "good years"
-no previous adultery
-no other addictive behaviors
-no history of actual abuse
-no OC to deal with
-the affair lasted less than 3 years
-mental illness is not at play

Having said that, there have been recovered marriages that have one or more of the above list. My own for instance. My husband was a drinking alcoholic at D day. Kimmy's marriage has recovered 2 OC bumps in the road. etc.

Hmm, going way back to Pep's post on this thread. My M was not very likely to recover. Adultery on both sides, him twice and an OC from the 2nd OW. Add to that on the above list no history of "many good years" which if I remember correctly was one of the reasons JL didn't think my M had a shot.

We are now 1.5 years into R. I would say the past 6 months have been moving into true recovery. I just realized a few days ago that one of my chief complaints about my H in the past was his tendency to expend more energy on others than on our marriage/family. Not any longer. He has changed so much because he wanted to and because it was the right thing to do. I am slowly becoming more secure and give very little thought to the xOW any more.

Just shows that even the worst of situations CAN turn around with work and faith that God can change a willing heart. I am eternally greatful to many people on this forum and to Dr. Harley for his books/concepts and this forum.
Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 08:34 PM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Originally Posted by medc
Much can be learned for sure from the likes of TST and Mrs. W's on this board.

And why not from me? MEDC, I am an FWW, I'm so much an FWW I don't even think of myself as one. I'm just me.

MEDC never said you were not helpful.

Unlike what you posted to me.

Feels uncomfortable in someone elses shoes, huh?
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 08:41 PM
Originally Posted by medc
you ask a question I will give you an honest answer. I DO think people could learn from you...BUT, I would not hold you out as an example (although I did say the LIKES of TST and Mrs W...YOU excluded yourself). One reason I wouldn't cite you as an example would be that you had a second affair I think it was 4 years after the first.

The second affair (yes, I call it that) was two years after total NC and that is now two years ago. My H and I have recovered totally from that. I would have thought it is a salutory lesson in NC being for life. Dr Harley says it must be for life and from what I've read he understands the dangers of breaking NC.

Originally Posted by medc
Another reason is that I believe...and I may be wrong about this...that you have been supportive of affair marriages being discussed on the active pages of this site.

You are wrong about that. I think affair marriages are doomed to failure and I don't know how people can ever admit without shame that is how they got together.

Originally Posted by medc
other than that...despite your attempts for years here to tell others how to post...I really don't have any issues with you.

I don't think I've ever told people how to post. Well, actually, I probably have, but only when it comes to dealing with WS's. As an FWW myself, I know what worked with me and I think it probably works with other FWWs. FWIW the post that really got through to me was from a BS who made me really look at myself. It was a very, very tough 2x4 but it was given out of true concern. That's what made it different from just telling me what a loser I was.

MEDC, I don't have an issue with you with either. I just wanted to clear up why you seem to be on my case.
Posted By: not2fun Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 08:41 PM
Originally Posted by medc
And while I do not begin to understand the logic Mark mentioned earlier (about respecting a recovered adulterer MORE than someone that never strayed...he used a more broad stroke covering many moral issues)

MEDC,

I think what Mark was saying was that he respected WS that do change, but not that he respected them more than the BS.

not2fun
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 08:44 PM
Originally Posted by iam
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Originally Posted by medc
Much can be learned for sure from the likes of TST and Mrs. W's on this board.

And why not from me? MEDC, I am an FWW, I'm so much an FWW I don't even think of myself as one. I'm just me.

MEDC never said you were not helpful.

Unlike what you posted to me.

Feels uncomfortable in someone elses shoes, huh?

I apologise IAM. I was reacting to what you said about JL when I made that remark. No I don't feel uncomfortable. I've been through the mill here and back again - I've a much tougher hide than I used to have.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 08:47 PM
Quote
I just wanted to clear up why you seem to be on my case.

not in the least....in fact I think it is the opposite.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 08:53 PM
LOL, you're probably right.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 08:55 PM
FF, your post warmed my heart. You know I was one of those that didn't think your M had a chance - I'm just so thrilled to read of how good things are for you now.
Posted By: faithful follower Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 09:02 PM
Quote
You know I was one of those that didn't think your M had a chance - I'm just so thrilled to read of how good things are for you now.
I know, Jen. I remember you weren't too fond of my FWH. Understandable considering how horrible his behavior was.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 09:05 PM
He certainly didn't get it for a loooooong time. I really am just so pleased for you both.
Posted By: faithful follower Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 09:14 PM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
He certainly didn't get it for a loooooong time. I really am just so pleased for you both.
Thank you. It took him a long time to hit rock bottom. I can almost tell you the exact date he did but it was a month after that he ended it with her for good. OC kept the A going much longer than it should have.

I am pleased you and Rob are doing so well.
Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 09:29 PM
Originally Posted by jayne241
Originally Posted by JosieJones
And I will never understand how in the Bible it states that God loves the lost sheep more than the rest of His sheep. Why? I don't really want an answer to that, just stating one of the things that never really rang true for me. Amazing Grace used to be one of my favorite hymms, but now I think it is over romanticized when someone turns from being lost and finally finds their way home. It is far better in my opinion to never have been lost in the first place.

I've also struggled with understanding the reasoning of the Prodigal Son Parable. I want to share my current thoughts.

Disclaimer: I don't tell God what to think and I don't claim to know everything He thinks. laugh These are my own thoughts only and are not intended to represent theology.

As a mother of twins, I've occasionally been asked if I find myself loving one more than the other. My answer: "I love more whichever one needs me the most at that moment."

That doesn't mean that, integrated over all time, I LOVE (generally care for and want the best for) one more than the other. But at any given moment, I may love (actively act to care for) one more than the other, if one needs me more in that instance.

I'm not disagreeing with ayne here but I wanted to pick up on this point Josie Jones made.

Josie: That is flawed. Nowhere in Scripture does it say God loves lost sheep more than the found ones. You struggle with it because it isn't true.

God's whole purpose is to seek and save the lost. He pursues the lost. He goes out looking for the lost sheep gone astray - but that does not mean he loves the lost sheep more.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 10:08 PM
Originally Posted by rprynne
I marvel at these threads. Why do we put so much responsiblity on the those that respond as opposed to those that ask? There is no doubt in my mind that those that truly want help will find it here regardless of the stlye or technique used. The ones that "run off" weren't looking for help.

Agree 100% rprynne. I don't know why we never seem to GET THAT. We have no control over others. If someone is so easily "run off" then they have bigger problems than some unpleasant words on a anonymous internet board. Good grief. If every person here was "run off" because someone said something unpleasant to them, then this board would have been empty a long time ago. Heck, I left in a huff one time because MORTARMAN hurt my feelings. Wouldn't it be silly to say that he "ran me off?" Honestly. Lets be adults here.

People who really want help couldn't be "run off" by wild horses. Some folks need to get some back bone and stop with the whining and start taking responsibility for their own choices.

As far as hu7668, he is angry because no one here will support his lying and cruelty to his wife. Most notably, he has been on some "other board" for several months and they are supposedly very NICE to him.

We can all see the result.

I wear his scorn like a badge of honor and am PROUD that he loathes this board. We should be worried if someone as fogged out and deceitful as this feels comfortable here. Thank God his bullcrap is not accepted or tolerated here.

These conversations about "running" people off never get anywhere and never achieve anything but hard feelings on the board. That is because no one here has any control over others [unless you are a mod] and because other posters will always post in the way that suits them. That will never change, despite all the hand wringing in the world. Never has, never will.

As they say in AA, ya can't control people, places or things, ya can't control people, places or things, ya can't control people, places or things, ya can't control people, places or things..... We have no control over other posters and we have no control over who leaves.....
Posted By: wildhorses74 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 10:15 PM
Quote
People who really want help couldn't be "run off" by wild horses.

I swear, I don't do it on purpose.


laugh
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by wildhorses74
Quote
People who really want help couldn't be "run off" by wild horses.

I swear, I don't do it on purpose.


laugh

laugh laugh
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 10:19 PM
Originally Posted by wildhorses74
Quote
People who really want help couldn't be "run off" by wild horses.

I swear, I don't do it on purpose.


laugh

grin
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 10:22 PM
Originally Posted by wildhorses74
Quote
People who really want help couldn't be "run off" by wild horses.

I swear, I don't do it on purpose.


laugh

now see, look at her cute face! Could she run anyone off?? laugh
Posted By: wildhorses74 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 10:32 PM
Damn! That's my mean face! You mean it's not intimidating?


I'll have to work on that.

Posted By: TheRoad Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 10:34 PM
I have read this thread where BS's hate all WS's. And, justify their postion to act WS when they post. Does that mean they will never forgive their own WS?

These other WS's never did anything to them.

Matter of fact a lot of posters on this thread, whether WS or BS, are just as foggy if not foggier as the new posters that come here. Why do I say that? The Justifing why it is ok to go over the top with a brand new poster.

It's one thing to be blunt, maybe use a 2x4. But to go for the juggler right from the starting gate?

Remember what this site has is not for everyone. Members all have their biasis'. But if we blugeon a new WS here and scare them away. How does this help that new WS's BS getting helped. For every WS that is helped we are helping a BS. For every WS that is scared away a BH is left with a WS continuing their affair and destroying a marriage and family.

Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 10:54 PM
TheRoad, again, no one here has the power "run off" anyone except the mods. Someone who wants help here will stay and get it. If folks are that easily "run off" then the problem lies with them. They need to get some backbone. We shouldn't be encouraging people to be spineless cowards who run at a harsh word. We are not teenage girls here, good grief.

Quote
I have read this thread where BS's hate all WS's. And, justify their postion to act WS when they post. Does that mean they will never forgive their own WS?

These other WS's never did anything to them.

Are you surprised to hear that a rape victim hates the rapist? I find your objection very odd. crazy I don't have to be personally RAPED to feel hatred for a rapist or a child molestor, do you?

Quote
if we blugeon a new WS here and scare them away. How does this help that new WS's BS getting helped

But you can only control YOURSELF. Again, it makes no difference what you think of how others post.
Posted By: TheRoad Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 10:58 PM
apples to oranges

confusing the power of a mod with scaring/discouraging someone from continuing here at MB

they are weak that's why they had an affair.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:00 PM
Originally Posted by TheRoad
apples to oranges

confusing the power of a mod with scaring/discouraging someone from continuing here at MB

they are weak that's why they had an affair.

Again, you have no control over other posters. You can only control yourself. That is a true fact, it has nothing to do with "apples to oranges."

Why are you wringing your hands over something which you have NO CONTROL? you have no control, you have no control...
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:01 PM
Quote
These conversations about "running" people off never get anywhere and never achieve anything but hard feelings on the board.

Agree.

Quote
That is because no one here has any control over others [unless you are a mod] and because other posters will always post in the way that suits them.

Disagree.

What's control (or not) over what people say have anything 2 do with the simple fact that people disagree on heated topics?

And why do you believe that mods have control over others here? Why should they? Why would they want that?

As non-professional volunteers, sort of an unpaid editorial staff, their purpose should be primarily 2 keep the peace. But maybe that's what you mean by control.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:08 PM
Originally Posted by 2long
Disagree.

What's control (or not) over what people say have anything 2 do with the simple fact that people disagree on heated topics?

This is not a disagreement about a "TOPIC" but a disagreement about how other posters post. That is a very different thing.

We have no control over the posting styles of others so what is the point of the endless carping about it? If we can't control it, why whine about it? What is the point?

Wouldn't the wise course of action be acceptance? Isn't that how mature adults behave?

Quote
And why do you believe that mods have control over others here?

It is not a "belief" but a true fact. Only the mods have the power to control others here, we don't.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:12 PM
Mods...this is NOT my thread so I only make this observation (and I guess a request to shut this thread) as a guest on this thread...but is there a purpose being served here??? The same old people questioning the same old things. There are plenty of moderators now...we don't need yet another in a long string of threads suggesting to people how and what they should post. It is my understanding that if someone has a problem with a post, they should contact you and if they have a problem with the moderation of this board they can email you all or Justice.

Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:15 PM
I can only give my view. When I arrived here I wasn't an active WS. Who knows what I'd have been like if I was. Probably defensive and justifying and unpleasant. I was here to learn so was very receptive to what everyone had to say. As I've said a hundred times I was lucky that JL took the time to talk to me. I was not mollycoddled, I wasn't told "oh poor you", I was asked to look at myself. I was prodded into some deep thinking. If I had been told I was a loser and a poor excuse for a person, I'd have stopped listening. NOT because I didn't want to hear the truth (sheesh, I already knew that about myself) but because it just wouldn't have been constructive.

When I confessed to MB that I had seen the OM again (but had stopped seeing him) there was a different reaction from everyone here. I came in for some very harsh words. I spent so much time defending myself that I stopped listening. Y'know after typing all that and thinking back I've just realised I was the perfect example of someone who didn't want to accept what I'd done. No wonder I came in for some hard truths. I almost typed that my words had been twisted back then. Hmmmm, what words would they have been? Perhaps, "it's not really an A, I just saw the OM for two weeks." Maybe it was "yes, I promise I'll tell my H". What a load of baloney.

I didn't get run off. Yes, I was very upset (to the point of tears a lot of the time) by some of the reactions but the truth is, I just didn't want to hear any of it.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:18 PM
Actually, MEDC, I think this thread has been very good. Yes, we do go over this ground quite often but I don't think that's such a terrible thing.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:27 PM
Jen...to my points (the one earlier about affairages and the one about starting these types of threads...this is in addition to the very recent "call out" thread to me that was immediately locked) please see the attached.

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/ubb...in=136590&Number=1725177#Post1725177

Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:27 PM
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
This is not a disagreement about a "TOPIC" but a disagreement about how other posters post. That is a very different thing.

HUH??? I DISAGREE!

Quote
We have no control over the posting styles of others so what is the point of the endless carping about it?

Think about this a minute. Who's doing the "carping?" Certainly not I.

Quote
Only the mods have the power to control others here, we don't.

I think that the way you're stating this comes across (2 me at least) as misleading. The mods may indeed have "control" - i.e., ultimate say - regarding what is on the boards, but that is NOT control of people.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:29 PM

Jen, thanks for making my point. You took some MASSIVE HEAT and you stuck around. Heck, you even stuck around when I called your husband and ratted you out! smile

I have had my own feelings hurt to the point that I left the board in disgust MANY TIMES. But it never ocurred to me to come whining and blame someone else for my choices. No one "ran me off." I am not a teenage gurl. Good grief.

Anyone who would encourage me to shift blame for MY OWN CHOICES is not a friend, but an ENABLER. Rather, folks should be encouraged to take responsibility for their actions.

It really irks me when I see folks here actually ENABLING very wayward minds to blame their choice to leave on other posters. Its very dysfunctional. That is not helpful to a already irresponsible, blameshifting wayward. Oddly, we never see this caterwauling when BS's leave the board in disgust for whatever reason. I have no idea why only waywards are in this special protected class. That seems backwards to me.

Most people here have been flamed at one time or the other, BS's and WSs alike, they didn't run crying to momma when it happened. And anyone who is stupid enough to believe they can come into a room of decent people and not have their [censored] handed to them for advocating adultery and deceit deserves a massive 2x4.


But, it always comes back to this one thing. People are free to post as they choose, as they see fit. It doesn't matter what I think about your posting style. All the hand wringing in the world will never change that.


Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:30 PM
I think the operative word in Mel's sentence was "here."

I couldn't control any people when I was a cop...except for those that fell under my authority and reach. Same with the mods. They get to control what people are able to post on these boards by the use of the edit function.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:37 PM
Originally Posted by 2long
Think about this a minute. Who's doing the "carping?" Certainly not I.

I didn't say you were.

Quote
Quote
Only the mods have the power to control others here, we don't.

I think that the way you're stating this comes across (2 me at least) as misleading. The mods may indeed have "control" - i.e., ultimate say - regarding what is on the boards, but that is NOT control of people.

-ol' 2long

Think a minute, 2long. The discussion is about control of the content of posts on this board. Who has ultimate control over the content of posts written by OTHER posters?

a. MODS

b. POSTERS



Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:41 PM
Oh goodie, a quiz!

Thanks for the clarification. Thanks for acknowledging my clarification.

Thanks medc, 2. That is all I was trying 2 say.

By simply changing the wording from "controlling others" 2 editing content of posts on a public forum, a lot of the hand wringing, or whatever metaphor is appropriate, would never happen.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:43 PM
I'm so glad we were finally able to get you up to speed! Better late than never, huh? laugh
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/24/08 11:44 PM
Originally Posted by medc
Jen...to my points (the one earlier about affairages and the one about starting these types of threads...this is in addition to the very recent "call out" thread to me that was immediately locked) please see the attached.

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/ubb...in=136590&Number=1725177#Post1725177

Boy, I was really pissed off, wasn't I!

The call out was because I didn't want to muddy Fatty's thread. It wasn't disrespectful.
Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 12:23 AM
Jen - I have noticed that you still think everything is about you.

You took MEDC to task on this very thread for not specifically naming you in his list (of 2!) FWS's

You took a discussion about pre-marital sex on the OT board and internalised it to the point where it was a direct slight on your daughter.

Why do you do that?
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 12:38 AM
Originally Posted by bigkahuna
Why do you do that?

How long have you got?

My friends and family have said to me all my life. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.

It's a trait/behaviour that I've had/learned?/battled with all my life.

Any ideas where it comes from? Pep will know. I know it's a form of selfishness but I've tried to fight it.

I do know that my personality type takes everything personally and to heart. You should see me if I'm criticised (constructively) during a staff review. I remember going to a seminar and when the woman running it said that such and such a personality type (mine) cannot bear criticism and take everything personally, but that on the plus side they are usually friendly and likeable, I felt much better.

OMG I can hear my mother and my sister. "Don't take everything SO PERSONALLY."

Edited to add: Luckily Rob is affectionately tolerant of that particular failing in me. But hey, I'm affectionately tolerant of his stories which take forever to tell. smile
Posted By: Pepperband Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 12:42 AM
I don't know.

Pep
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 12:43 AM
LOL, thanks. smile
Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 01:29 AM
When I see some 'holier than thou' 'vet' poster tell some WS to 'ignore' a poster THEY disagree with I want to sick

Who are you to tell someone to ignore me? Are you a mod?

I have yet to see a BS with a 2x4 tell anyone to ignore another poster. Yet I see it all the time from the same group of FWS's.
Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 01:33 AM
Originally Posted by bigkahuna
Jen - I have noticed that you still think everything is about you.


Why do you do that?

While I accept your apology Kiwi, I'm glad someone pointed this out because I did not want to ask this same thing directly due to my newness here.

Why is it all about you?
Posted By: Just Learning Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 05:45 AM
To return to the discussion about posting and such.

It seems to me a well placed 2x4 is sometimes required. Or perhaps just "firm" guidance is a better term. But, I am reminded of something I learned in High School, that I have found to be very very important in the real world for almost 50 years.

When I was a young boy (14) I went out for football (american football Jen and BK cool ) I was not very coordinated as I had and was growing fast. I was a good 30-40 lbs heavier than the other kids, and I was probably a half a foot taller, give or take a little. IN any event as was the custom of the day, we weren't allowed to drink water during practice (how dumb could they be), and we always ran wind sprints at the end of practice.

Now being rather large for my age and rather uncoordinated I usually finished dead last in the wind sprints. At which point the coaches would yell at me for being slow. Now I may have not been the brightest bulb in the light fixture, but even I knew I was slow (all I could see were backsides (to be polite) and elbows in front of me). IN another words they were not telling me anything I did not know.

However, not one coach ( I went to three high schools in three years) ever offered any guidance on how I could become faster. I spent hours in the weight room, got alot stronger, and eventually played college football and basketball. I was faster because I simply got so much stronger. It was not until I tore up a knee and had to relearn how to walk after the cast came off, that I truly learned to run. I learned by watching people walk, watching sprinters on TV, and watching the faster guys (running backs run). I had to retrain my leg to work after months in a cast. I learned I had never run where I could efficiently use my strength to increase my speed. I learned then and became reasonably fast.

What is the point of the shaggy dog story? I found criticism of the obvious coupled with no guidance was a waste of my time and the person I was addressing's time.

Nothing wrong with a 2x4 but it ought to be coupled with guidance as how to address the issues at hand. "Just STOP" is not really guidance. One of the neat things about this site is that Harley offers a lot of information in his articles. And in their fog, a WS is not really likely to understand it unless it is explained to them, and that usually only if they are not more defensive than would normally be expected.

I also agree with Ap, that very long term affairs are really different beasts, and I think his assessment of where a WS stands and what the reactions will be are very accurate. Hence as he (or was it someone else) counceling is really really important IF the WS will do it.

This leads me to one other thought which I am sure a bunch of people will respond to. I believe rebuilding a good marriage, having a good marriage, recoverying a marriage is achieved in only ONE WAY. That is right, I said ONE WAY. In many respects this is like shooting a basketball. To the casual observer it would seem even in the pro's there are many styles of shooting. But, really there is only ONE way to be a good shooter, and all good shooters do it the same way. The problem is most people look at the body, the positioning and assume this is about shooting. Shooting is from the elbow to the finger tips up. If you focus looking at just that part of the anatomy, you will see no matter what else the shooter is doing, the good ones do it the same.

I think this is true of marriages and marriage building, and marriage rebuilding. Of all of the articles Harley has on this site, if one were to focus on his "four rules for a good marriage", and his two policies (radical honesty and joint agreement) and do those well, you will have a good marriage, you can rebuild the marriage. All of the other plans, needs, love busters, etc are to attempt to get people to those two basic concepts of marriage (his policies and four rules).

Good marriages have those aspects to them. Well rebuilt marriages have those aspects to them. WS's turn into FWS's, turn into loving spouses when those aspects are returned or developed in a marriage. BS's turn into better spouses when those aspects are in their marriage.

It seems to me that the one thing we ought to have is respect for anyone who comes here, even if we HATE what they did. We should start there, and let the poster prove whether this respect is really warrented.

I will say that Hu who has posted on this thread is an interesting example of someone who has gotten some 2x4's, and also given some excellent advice (tell his W about his A). He has stated that whether he has or has not told his W is not of our concern. Fair enough. Perhaps others will do as I have done, I read his thread, saw how it went and "respectfully" refuse to spend time in that situation. He does not have to tell us a thing, and we don't have to respond to his lack of information. It is a two way street folks.

Just thoughts.

God Bless,

JL
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 06:21 AM
Thank you JL, as always.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 06:25 AM
Originally Posted by iam
Originally Posted by bigkahuna
Jen - I have noticed that you still think everything is about you.


Why do you do that?

While I accept your apology Kiwi, I'm glad someone pointed this out because I did not want to ask this same thing directly due to my newness here.

Why is it all about you?

Funny thing, I've noticed that everyone's posts are "all about them". Unless people are actually helping other people, yup, it's usually all about them.

I thought maybe it was allowed to be all about me - I'm the only one speaking here after all and it IS my thread.

iam, you obviously have a problem with me (join the club - it was never like this "before"). If you don't like me, don't post to my threads. I'm wondering why you don't like me (yep, that's part of the old personality type problem I have as well) but that's your prerogative.

Something tells me that you think that because I'm an FWW, my general outlook is "it's all about me".

Personally, I think it has more to do with being an over-indulged, spoiled princess as I was growing up.
Posted By: A_pretty_face Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 06:33 AM
Well said JL

We are all here for one reason. To improve our M. and to lend advice to others.
Posted By: lildoggie Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 06:54 AM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Personally, I think it has more to do with being an over-indulged, spoiled princess as I was growing up.

Well you certainly filled the adage "know thyself"

laugh
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 06:56 AM
LOL, it's all true. blush
Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 12:22 PM
Quote
It's a trait/behavior that I've had/learned?/battled with all my life.

Consider that you may have a basic insecurity regarding ā€œwho you areā€. In these pages you wear a title of Formally Wayward Wife. Such a title could perhaps help drive that insecurity perhaps causing you to seek acceptance from those who could (in your eyes) grant you forgiveness, namely the betrayed spouses here in these pages. That is why what they think of you is so important to you.

Do you eat up their accolades and then shutter when they express descending views from you?

Certainly we all have some level of desire to be viewed in a positive light by our peers. When someone chases that acceptance at the cost of their happiness then perhaps it is time for them to reevaluate what is important in life.

I canā€™t help but wonder how truly important it is for a formally wayward spouse to one day be able to shed the title ā€œformally waywardā€ from their identity. I somehow get the feeling from reading your posts that you have not granted yourself the position of equality with everyone here, or perhaps your husband is hindering your way, or perhaps you are too insecure with yourself for what you did in the past to seize it for yourself.

The truth is that you donā€™t need our acceptance of you to be a full and complete person. The mistakes that you made in the past can be your field guide to the ā€œlessons learned in lifeā€, but they should not be a prison sentence.

Just a few thoughts and observations,

Mr. G
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 02:07 PM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Originally Posted by bigkahuna
Why do you do that?

How long have you got?

My friends and family have said to me all my life. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU.

It's a trait/behaviour that I've had/learned?/battled with all my life.

Any ideas where it comes from? Pep will know. I know it's a form of selfishness but I've tried to fight it.

I do know that my personality type takes everything personally and to heart. You should see me if I'm criticised (constructively) during a staff review. I remember going to a seminar and when the woman running it said that such and such a personality type (mine) cannot bear criticism and take everything personally, but that on the plus side they are usually friendly and likeable, I felt much better.

OMG I can hear my mother and my sister. "Don't take everything SO PERSONALLY."

Edited to add: Luckily Rob is affectionately tolerant of that particular failing in me. But hey, I'm affectionately tolerant of his stories which take forever to tell. smile

I understand this Jen...

Overcoming this is what I've been busy with in my personal recovery...

I suspect that many FWS have been this way all their lives as well, and I believe at least some credence can be given to that "personality trait" being part of what allowed us to become wayward in the first place...Being highly susceptible to praise from others gives an easy "in" to OPs...Becoming putty when your ego is stroked...

It is an unhealthy need for outside validation...Relying on others to let you know how to feel about you...And when you do that, you put your entire self worth into their hands...You give away your power...It can become debilitating...

Mr. G gets it...I'd be willing to bet large sums of money that what he said is true about you...That accolades from others make you soar into elation, and by the same token, the slightest criticism can and often does send you plummeting into despair...Questioning yourself...Worrying why others don't "like" you...I know, because that is how I lived for years...

I credit this board, and particularly my friendship with MelodyLane, in helping me to understand and overcome this...Anytime that I have gone to her with a "problem", she has hammered into me that the only thing that really counts is "the opinion of the lady in the mirror" (obviously God and Mr. W count too!)...When I would be upset about something that someone said I would often go to Mel with it, as I know that she will call me on my baloney...One time in particular I was fuming at my MIL...I had told her about my starting a Bible study at church...She said, "Well thank goodness, I've been praying that you and Mr. W would get involved in church for years - my prayers have been answered." I relayed this conversation to Mel and said, "Can you believe it? She acted like I am some Godless heathen!" Mel said, "Well, are you a Godless heathen?" I said, "No, of course not." To which she replied, "then why would you let it bother you? Thank your MIL for her prayers, maybe they did help you." WOW, that was really a revelation for me, so now I ask myself those questions regarding anything others might say to me...If *I* believe there is truth to what they said, then I will consider it and take action if warranted...If not, then I ignore them...That is soooooooooooo freeing...Seems so simple, but it eluded me for YEARS!

Funny thing, I how found that when I seek and follow God's plan instead of Mrs. W's plan, the "the lady in the mirror's" opinion is a very positive one...Doing good results in feeling good...Neat how that works! lol wink Today that seems so elementary to me (I know that it does for so many people), but before it never occured to me...

Going to church, combined with what I've learned from Mel has really made this puzzle come together for me in such a logical fashion...I can't believe that I allowed myself to be held captive by the opinions of others for so long...Through my deepening relationship with God I have come to understand that I am enough because He says I am...I have always been enough, I just didn't realize it...God created us in His image...He says that we are "wonderfully and fearfully made"...His opinion overrides all others, and really it was highly disrespectful of me to disregard what He said in lieu of what other people thought or said...

Anyway Jen, just thought I'd share and see if you could relate to or benefit from any of my experiences...

Take care...smile

Mrs. W

Posted By: at peace Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 02:44 PM
Originally Posted by Just Learning
It seems to me that the one thing we ought to have is respect for anyone who comes here, even if we HATE what they did. We should start there, and let the poster prove whether this respect is really warrented.

IMO, that's the most helpful thing said on this thread so far.

I was taught to be respectful. Not necessarily nice or kind, if the person or situation doesn't warrant that treatment...but respectful. That's more about ME than it is about the person I'm addressing.

Lori
Posted By: MrWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 03:35 PM
OK...

Now that that has all been hashed out let's bring this thread back on the topic of Mrs. W.

It's her REAL 39th birthday today.

Happy Birthday, sweetheart. blush

Mr. Wondering
Posted By: princessmeggy Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 03:55 PM
Happy REAL 39th Birthday Mrs. W

and may you celebrate many many more 39th birthdays!
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 04:23 PM
blush blush blush Hey, this thread isn't about ME!!! blush blush blush

Nonetheless, LOL! That was pretty funny dear! grin I thank both you and PM very much! smile

Mrs. W

Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 04:29 PM
***EDIT***

2long,

If you have a problem with the moderation of the forums, please contact the moderators or MB Admin (Justuss) directly.

Thank you.

Maverick
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 04:29 PM
Originally Posted by princessmeggy
Happy REAL 39th Birthday Mrs. W

and may you celebrate many many more 39th birthdays!

Wow, that's YOUNG!

I don't even remember 39!

-ol' 2long
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 04:57 PM
Originally Posted by 2long
***EDIT***

2long,

If you have a problem with the moderation of the forums, please contact the moderators or MB Admin (Justuss) directly.

Thank you.

Maverick

Maverick:

I tried 2 email c00per, but the message came back as undeliverable.

I just tried 2 email you, but you don't have an email address in your profile.

What's a mother 2 do?

-ol' 2long
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 05:07 PM
Happy Birthday, Mrs W, my good friend!! smile

{{{{{{{{{{{MrsW}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 05:10 PM
:eek:

39 and holding....Happy Birthday Mrs. W!
Posted By: JustUss Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 05:28 PM
Sorry 2Long.

I have fixed Maverick's email link (I hope)

Maverick---- marriagebuilders.maverick@gmail.com

Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 05:29 PM
From KiwiJ's opening post on her thread:
Quote
If you've ever seen JL posting to waywards you will see what can be achieved with firmness which isn't abusive.

JL posted:
Quote
It seems to me that the one thing we ought to have is respect for anyone who comes here, even if we HATE what they did. We should start there, and let the poster prove whether this respect is really warrented.

at peace posted:
Quote
IMO, that's the most helpful thing said on this thread so far.

I was taught to be respectful. Not necessarily nice or kind, if the person or situation doesn't warrant that treatment...but respectful. That's more about ME than it is about the person I'm addressing.

I agree with at peace.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 05:55 PM
You crazy birthday partiers are embarassing me, but I LOVE it! grin Thank you so much! cool

I don't think Jen is gonna be too happy about her thread becoming my birthday thread though...Sorry Jen! crazy

W2S was a real nice fella and started a birthday thread just for me!!! smile It's ~~~> HERE whistle

Thanks again!

Mrs. W
Posted By: Just Learning Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 06:17 PM
My My My!,

39. THat was a "magical" age in my family. My mother was "39", I was "39", my sisters were "39", and my brothers turned "39" ALL AT THE SAME TIME. laugh

Mrs. W I hope you enjoy 39 as much as my family did...for YEARS. smile

Happy Birthday.

JL
Posted By: Aphelion Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 08:48 PM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Yet here you are on my thread. Aph, I know we've talked in the past. I also know we had a falling out which had nothing to do with infidelity.

Luckily (is that the right word - probably not) my H sees me as me and he loves the me that is me. I love the him that is him. In the scheme of things that's all that matters. Not whether MEDC thinks I can't keep my yap shut (lol - that made me smile, I've been in trouble for not keeping my yap shut since I first learned to talk), not whether I'm an FWW or a PQRZTXWW, just what my dear H thinks.

We have laughed together more in the last two years than we ever have. We have talked and we have been happy together. We adore our children, they adore us. Our son worries us, our daughter is bridezilla. We are happy.
Yeah, I know. I wondered if you would notice after I posted. I sort of thought of this as a meta-thread though ā€“ a thread about WS threads. One step removed from actually participating on a WS thread.

I am happy for your H things are looking up for him. I do wonder if you truly know what he still feels about your adultery when he wakes up in the middle of the night. Or when you occasionally still act like there could be something going on. Or when he canā€™t locate you. Or whatever the triggerā€¦ I guarantee he will remember your recurring adultery on his deathbed. It never goes away, no matter what he tells you to reassure you now. As you admit, he knows deep down it is still all about you.

And your now being happy proves what, adultery is beneficial to the BS?

In my entire time on MB I have only put two posters on ignore. You are one of them, when you restarted your adultery. I donā€™t remember any specific falling out. I just remember no longer reading your posts or posting to you. When the site was upgraded a few months ago those ignores were disabled for some reason. I will reset them for you.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 09:16 PM
Happy, happy birthday Mrs W. grin grin grin

I got up in the middle of the night and read your and Mr G's posts to me (on my phone so I couldn't reply). Yes, you both have it summed up completely. Mrs W, after reading your post, I went back to bed a much, much happier person. The lady in the mirror. It was like being given a wonderful gift. Thank you and thank you Mr G.

Aphelion, you are not my H. As if I'm so stupid that I don't know my adultery affected our marriage forever. I also know that we have moved passed it and are looking forward to a wonderful old age together. My H is a very special man, you don't meet many like him in life. It is a family joke, long before my A, that only my H would put up with me. My DD even said to me the other day that she can't tell what is loopy menopause and what is just me being my loopy self. As to my adultery being benefical in any way to anybody. I wish it had never, never happened.

And, from what I learned from Mrs W in the middle of the night last night, whether you have me on ignore or whatever you think of me, just doesn't matter.

Not everyone can like me - the people who matter (my husband and family) do. And I like me.
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 09:28 PM
Originally Posted by Aphelion
I guarantee he will remember your recurring adultery on his deathbed. It never goes away, no matter what he tells you to reassure you now.

I'll let Jen speak for herself here, but since you and I have the dubious distinction of both having been dealt VLTAs, I'd like 2 offer my own view of this point of yours. Maybe it'll be of some use 2 others who come along here after we're gone.

I still think about my W's affair, nearly every day. I realized this a 2ple of months ago after I quit drinking and found myself able 2 ponder my own detachment process over the past few years with an accordingly-clearer head (I didn't drink THAT much, but my general feeling of well-being has definitely increased since stopped).

I realized that I've been thinking about the affair more lately, not because contact continues (some attempts at professional contact has continued on my W's part - no details, sorry, but he had control of something of hers that she needed back - such that my W is realizing what a pathetic pusillanimous dweezlenut Rat Meat truly is, all without my "help!") but rather because our recovery really kicked off after our arguments in March. I don't even know why that was special. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe what was was my quitting drinking when I did, the way I did, and how I've been after I did (she seems to enjoy me more, and is less afraid of talking about M with me than ever before).

And my W is truly more fun 2 be around now. I even find myself regretting that I'm going out of town on business next week, whereas just a month ago I was still enjoying myself immensely when she was out of town teaching for 2.5 weeks.

I don't think the memory of the VLTA should ever go away, but the pain and retaliatory remarks/actions should, and likely will in most cases, even in VLTA aftermaths.

Adultery isn't beneficial 2 anybody, BS or WS. But it sure is character-building. And having characters such as myself built is a good thing - in my view.

Grateful for the education brought on by the affair does not mean I'm grateful for the affair.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: lildoggie Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 09:51 PM
Originally Posted by 2long
Adultery isn't beneficial 2 anybody, BS or WS. But it sure is character-building. And having characters such as myself built is a good thing - in my view.

Grateful for the education brought on by the affair does not mean I'm grateful for the affair.

-ol' 2long


Hear, hear.
I will NEVER be grateful, happy or positive about the A, but I am amazed at how much better a person I am than I thought I was before. I am alot stronger and capable. I have rights. I am worthy. I am loved.
My H is not a demigod of perfection, he has all the same flaws as everyone else.

We will both be much better people when we get thru this.

PS Jen, I hope Im one of those who matter, cos I like you smile
Posted By: Aphelion Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 10:25 PM
Originally Posted by 2long
I still think about my W's affair, nearly every day.
Every other day or so for me.

Originally Posted by 2long
And my W is truly more fun 2 be around now. I even find myself regretting that I'm going out of town on business next week, whereas just a month ago I was still enjoying myself immensely when she was out of town teaching for 2.5 weeks.
Same here again. But I never did like business travel.

Originally Posted by 2long
I don't think the memory of the VLTA should ever go away, but the pain and retaliatory remarks/actions should, and likely will in most cases, even in VLTA aftermaths.
Yet again. There are no A discussions. It is never brought up. I learned not to the hard way a couple of years ago. As to the pain, well, it still hurts. Donā€™t know why for sure, but probably somewhat because of the former. Loving Detachment cures a multitude of pains though.

Originally Posted by 2long
Adultery isn't beneficial 2 anybody, BS or WS. But it sure is character-building. And having characters such as myself built is a good thing - in my view.
You were a character long before the VLTA! Now you have a nice verdigris patina.

Originally Posted by 2long
Grateful for the education brought on by the affair does not mean I'm grateful for the affair.
I knew all about the misery and stupidity of adultery from the beginning. I went through similar with old college gf. Went through it with W after D-Day 1 of the VLTA. And after the first EA. W knew. W claimed to know and heartily agree. We had hours of discussions about it before we married and after the other D-Days. She lied. I didnā€™t. So no, I am not grateful for a forced labor / reeducation camp on what I already knew.

With prayers,
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by Aphelion
But I never did like business travel.

I don't usually, either. But this one is a field trip 2 the Big Island!

-ol' 2long
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/25/08 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by 2long
But this one is a field trip 2 the Big Island!

Mars!!!!!!!!! wink
Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 02:05 AM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
I thought maybe it was allowed to be all about me - I'm the only one speaking here after all and it IS my thread.

Look at me, look at me, look at me!!!

Duh, ya think you have a problem?!?!?!

Originally Posted by KiwiJ
iam, you obviously have a problem with me (join the club - it was never like this "before"). If you don't like me, don't post to my threads. I'm wondering why you don't like me (yep, that's part of the old personality type problem I have as well) but that's your prerogative.

No it's YOUR problem. Did you ever think maybe everyone else is right?

Your arrogance about 'your' thread is telling.

Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Something tells me that you think that because I'm an FWW, my general outlook is "it's all about me".

Personally, I think it has more to do with being an over-indulged, spoiled princess as I was growing up.

Wrong about the FWW, right about the over-indulged princess. Why don't you try to rectify that?
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 02:16 AM
Feel better iam? Now you've got that off your chest.

Y'know I'd laugh because, seriously, the stuff you're spouting is laughable but, you know something, I actually understand that you are in pain. See, I do have an empathy gene even though I'm an over indulged princess.

I'm not sure about your sitch - I'll look it up. BTW do I know you under another name?

Edited to add: I've looked up your sitch and you've had a very bad time. I still can't quite work out why you feel the need to attack me though but there must be some payoff. Do you feel relieved when you've let it all out, do you feel justified? Is it because I made an insensitive remark to you?
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 03:09 AM
Quote
I actually understand that you are in pain.

Perhaps if you were not so quick to dismiss the views of others that you see (even if it isn't true) as attacking you....either they are in pain, picking on you, or just plain rude...you might realize that some of the posters are actually telling you what they see in you...not using their pain to attack you. I think Iam is just giving you his/her honest assessment. Your need to continually throw out the words "attack" and "abuse" is really a reflection of how you feel about you...not how someone else views you.
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 03:13 AM
Wow, what a great thread this is turning out to be. Everyone sharing freely. Hardly any edits. Well, except for 2long. LOL, 2long. Still at it, I see.

Big K, apparently we attended different churches growing up. I don't know scripture like you do, but I do remember what I learned in church. At least what my interpretation of what I heard and read was.

Quote
And now it's time for the next phase of our journey.

'bout dang time, 2long. The best to you both. The next phase of the journey is what it's all about, eh?


Jen!!!!! Everything is always all about me. So how can it be all about you?

Read any good books lately?

I'm currently reading "The Money Game". It's a hard, must be focused read... but I like it.

Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 03:17 AM
LOL I give up. I surrender. Maybe it's a cultural thing but in my country that would be called a personal attack.

Hey, Josie, yes, lots of good books.

I think I'll just go and finish making soup for my sick DS. Much safer lol.

Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 03:49 AM
Oh crap, I just can't let this go.

Okay, if you are going to build a ship you would need to study what floats, not what sinks.

For instance, if I wanted to build a boat, I would probably go down to the lake to see what floats. I might see the rock laying on the lake bottom, but it wouldn't interest me because it was at the bottom of the lake, hardly a good boat building example, and then I would look at the duck floating at the top of the water. I wouldn't grab the rock and waste my time to see why it sank, I would grab the duck and see why it was floating.

I am not trying to determine why the rock sinks, I am trying to determine why the duck floats.

In other words, if I was trying to determine why some people have a good marriage, why some people are faithful, why some people are successful at life, I would look to the good marriages and the faithful people to see what they are doing to get that way.

That is my whole point about waywards. If they truly want to change their lives, to have good marriages, they will look to those that have accomplished that. They won't be wasting their time with a bunch of other waywards.

It is not so difficult to do. I did it, and I did it by studying those who were successful, not by studying those who weren't.

I'm not an aeronautic engineer. I couldn't care less why things sink or crash to the ground. I want to know what works.

But in a plan to change things, one must keep track of what doesn't work, in order to apply a different course of action. But that's not what I'm talking about.

Whew... crazy

Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 04:59 AM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
That is my whole point about waywards. If they truly want to change their lives, to have good marriages, they will look to those that have accomplished that. They won't be wasting their time with a bunch of other waywards.

Agree 200%. They know how to screw up a marriage, not recover one. The only reason I think its important to understand a WS is so one can see through their bullcrap. Only for purposes of SELF PRESERVATION, [and amusement grin] NOT to figure out how to recover. I didn't look to a falling down drunk to get recovery tips; I looked to successful recovering alcoholics who practiced the program.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 05:06 AM
A serious question. Do you think FWS's have something to offer. It's why I've always stuck around. I've been thinking (while making my soup) that I sense some resentment that I'm happy and my H is happy. I get the feeling that people are upset that the karma bus didn't hit me.

I thought recovered marriages were what MB was all about. I can honestly say I'm happy. I'm content and I'm happy.

In the early days I was part of a thread of (F)WS's. You know something, none of them went on to recover.

Edited to add I also thought of some great responses to Medc and Iam while I was making my soup but, honestly, I really don't care what they think. Mrs W and Mr G touched me deeply in the middle of the night and that's what matters.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 05:25 AM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
A serious question. Do you think FWS's have something to offer. It's why I've always stuck around. I've been thinking (while making my soup) that I sense some resentment that I'm happy and my H is happy. I get the feeling that people are upset that the karma bus didn't hit me.

I thought recovered marriages were what MB was all about. I can honestly say I'm happy. I'm content and I'm happy.

In the early days I was part of a thread of (F)WS's. You know something, none of them went on to recover.

Alrighty Jen, I'm gonna hafta smack ya...wink Here's why...Would it matter if someone else thought you had something to offer? It matters that YOU think that you have something to offer, and that you offer it with a free heart - and let's not forget that YOU may be helped by your posting - you matter too...See, there will be some people that think that you have nothing to offer, and some that think you do - Both are okay...Both are cool...Neither one of those opinions changes YOU...

Not sure if you missed it or not, but I recently said on some thread here that we were helped by YOU...Now, mind you, it's not something that you will be thrilled about offering, but it was CRUCIAL help to our recovery, and we thank you...When you had your fall from grace Jen, THAT is what convinced me completely of the importance of NC for LIFE...Up until that point Mr. W and I were planning to attend my 20th high school reunion where OM was likely to be...That changed when I watched in horror at what contact wrought in your life...We did not go...Please believe me, I thank you for that lesson...Mr. W thanks you and though she doesn't know it, our dd8 thanks you as well...

Remember, the opinions of others do NOT define you...You and Rob are married and enjoying each other Jen - that matters most...Take what you need here, and leave the rest...

Mrs. W

P.S. I really don't think that people resent you for being in a recovered marriage Jen - I sure don't think they resent Mr. W and I, but what if they did? Would it change your circumstances or mine? Think about it...cool
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 05:28 AM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
A serious question. Do you think FWS's have something to offer.

RECOVERED FWS's do. They are awesome.

Quote
I've been thinking (while making my soup) that I sense some resentment that I'm happy and my H is happy.

You would have to address to the person in question. Personally, I am always happy to see a good solid recovery and have no resentments.

Quote
I get the feeling that people are upset that the karma bus didn't hit me.

Not me.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 05:30 AM
Smack accepted Mrs W. OMG, I said some terrible things to you when I fell from grace. Please accept my apologies.

I really don't know if you really can appreciate what your words meant to me at 2.00am this morning.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 05:40 AM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Smack accepted Mrs W. OMG, I said some terrible things to you when I fell from grace. Please accept my apologies.

I really don't know if you really can appreciate what your words meant to me at 2.00am this morning.

Don't give it a second thought...Honestly, I don't remember...

I'm very glad to know that my words touched you in some way...Thank you for telling me...

You know, I have found that helping others...whether that be here or elsewhere really helps me to combat my own tendency towards self-centeredness...(you know, the "all about me" dealio wink)

My closest friend is a member of AA, coincidentally so is Mel...That is a terrific program, imo...They teach that "in order to keep it, I must give it away"...Being "of service" to others keeps the focus off of self and moves us towards having a "servant's heart" as God wants us to...It helps us to follow the command of "love one another"...I also believe that doing for others helps us with our struggle against the unhealthy desires of the "flesh"...

The flesh craves things that weaken and destroy our spirits...Succumbing to the desires of the flesh are what lead to depression, pain and despair...Very bad things are born of the flesh...

Anyway, to steal a line from JL, "just some thoughts"...

Nite Jen...Big hugs...

Mrs. W
Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 08:30 AM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
A serious question. Do you think FWS's have something to offer. It's why I've always stuck around. I've been thinking (while making my soup) that I sense some resentment that I'm happy and my H is happy. I get the feeling that people are upset that the karma bus didn't hit me.

Hmm.

Jen - you and I have done the rounds a few times and been friends even.

I have nothing but respect for WS's who have earned their "F" and I have even been retty protective of some wonderful "FWW's" here.

I think FWS's are awesome. I really do. That is what puzzles me about Aphelions posts on this thread. No wonder his marriage is still unsatisfying. His wife can smell his attitude a mile away.
Posted By: committedandlovi Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 01:22 PM
Quote
That is my whole point about waywards. If they truly want to change their lives, to have good marriages, they will look to those that have accomplished that. They won't be wasting their time with a bunch of other waywards.

That's when you start thinking the "birds of a feather" thingie.


To me, recovering a marriage is like climbing Mt. Everest.

Who do you want leading you? Someone who has done it and succeeded?

Or someone who read the book and is gonna wing it?

committed
Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 02:36 PM
Quote
A serious question. Do you think FWS's have something to offer.
Quote
RECOVERED FWS's do. They are awesome.

There is something that is so very satisfying to me to witness a wayward spouse who slowly begins to understand what life and love can offer them. The greatest opportunities lie with them. I sometimes think that it is unfortunate that we sometimes forget that every single recovered formally wayward spouse started out as a self indulgent, diluted and shameful individual hiding in the guise of a sheep. There are but few exceptions. To be able to climb out from such a position is nothing short of miraculous.

Quote
I get the feeling that people are upset that the karma bus didn't hit me.

True or not, so what? Your marriage is ā€œyour marriageā€. It is your happiness that should be motivating your actions. And when your happiness is grows from the happiness you extend towards your loved ones, while then, you are really on to something. It seems to me that a great number of folks never ever get this simple truth. Within this simple idea lies the basic concept of why ā€œGiver and Takerā€ are so very important to understand.

Perhaps you are looking for the folks you know in these pages to forgive you for your last not-so-recent slip? Itā€™s a tough crowd; that is for sure. If there is any truth to my query then my advice to you is to travel the high road and ā€œdamn the torpedoes, full speed aheadā€. You will never have a regret.

**edited to let you know that I am off to the golf course and will respond latter

Mr. G
Posted By: rprynne Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 02:44 PM
When I think about a person struggling with it being all about them, I usually jump to having an unhealthy self-esteem. Not neccessarily a low self-esteem, but an unhealthy one.

I saw a nice little summary in a book I read that had something like the following. Self-esteem is unhealthy when it is outside in instead of inside out. The typical outside in health esteems are performance based esteem (I have worth because of what I accomplish), other based esteem (I have worth because of what people think of me), and attribute based self esteem (I have worth because of what I have). One can also have combinations, i.e. other/performance based self esteem (I have worth because of what my spouse or child has accomplished).

I think the main reason why they are unhealthy is that they are inconsistent and unsustainable. They may "work" for a while, but eventually they break down. They may "work" one day and then not the next.

Men typically gravitate towards performance based esteem. I feel good because I won the game or got the promotion. But one day, they won't win the game, or get the promotion. People plateau, and new people are always coming up to out perform you. So basing your self esteem on performance will ultimately let you down.

Women typically gravitate towards other based esteem. I feel good because other people like me, or I made this other person happy. When they deal with people they are super sensitive and it becomes "all about them" because other people are the measure of their self esteem. But other people are fickle, you can't keep them happy and liking you all the time, and the more people you know the harder it gets. Basing your self-esteem on other people will ultimately let you down.

Attribute based self esteem seems to affect both men and women. I feel good because of how I look or what I have. But looks will fade, and there will always be people who have more. Again, its only a matter of team until one's self-esteem is damaged.

Outside in self-esteem can't be sustained over a life time and is subject to so many ups and downs due to the whims in life.

Inside out self-esteem, in its most basic form is "one has worth simply because they are alive". Its not so much about doing, but being. You don't have to earn your self esteem. I suppose some would argue against that, but I don't see any other way around it.
Posted By: Pepperband Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 03:11 PM
link to notable post by Suzet*

this is worth reading - it's about self worth
Posted By: Pepperband Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 03:22 PM
I wanted to throw in my 2 cents and share my personal reaction to ...

THIS:


Originally Posted by rprynne
When they deal with people they are super sensitive and it becomes "all about them" because other people are the measure of their self esteem.

and THIS:


Quote
Basing your self-esteem on other people will ultimately let you down.

I do not make a good companion to people who function this way.
It annoys me to be the air in their balloon when I need my air to float my own balloon.
Others enjoy becoming this important to someone else's self esteem, I do not enjoy it. It feels like a trap to me.

My deep and enduring life long friendships are with women with whom I am equally yoked - and I do not experience them leaning on me for their identity or their worth.

I am not for everyone - that's for sure.

Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 03:29 PM
Originally Posted by Pepperband
Others enjoy becoming this important to someone else's self esteem, I do not enjoy it. It feels like a trap to me.

I feel this same way and resent being patronized for the sake of someone's self esteem. It irritates me.

Quote
My deep and enduring life long friendships are with women with whom I am equally yoked - and I do not experience them leaning on me for their identity or their worth.

Amen..
Posted By: meremortal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 03:44 PM
"The history of divorce in our society is replete with unwarranted assumptions that adults have made about children simply because such assumptions are congenial to adult needs and wishes." - Judith Wallerstein, "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce", 2000

I've seen implications posted that the reason some of the BS's get so upset by what unrepentent, active adulterers post, is because the BS's are vengeful, unforgiving, 'stuck', (jealous?), whatever...

I assure you that although I am still in recovery, I do not 'hate' my WXH, and I am not redirecting that hate towards WS's that post here.

(Besides, there are FWS's who confront active WS's with 2x4's here, obviously that theory doesn't explain that.)

Recovery does not mean there will come a time when the BS will start caring more about the feelings and lustful desires of the WS more than they care about the children that are hurt by adultery. Recovery does not mean that the BS's will stop challenging the foggy (yet popular) lie that divorce doesn't harm children. And recovery does not mean that a LIE will be called a 'different but equally valid POV'!

Come on folks, I thought it was understood that adulterers LIE.
You may as well not make any attempt to stop adultery, your own WS's adultery or anyone else's, if you start pretending that their lies are truths just so they won't get offended.

Adultery is evil. If you have't realized that yet and/or can't bring yourself to say that because you fear being unliked by adulterers (or fear being censored) then no matter what 'style' you use in posting you will not have much effectiveness at stopping adultery (although you may be VERY affective at befriending adulterers and helping them feel better about what they're doing).

My posting style does not involve calling active adulterers names. Very few posters here have ever done that. So why not get honest and stop pretending that ALL those who are being chastised, edited, censored for supposedly breaking the posting rules are doing anything more than opposing evil?

Adultery IS evil and it IS nasty and it DOES harm children.
Adulterers ARE lying, they are selfish, they are destroying marirage/families.

It is not 'hate speech' to speak those truths.

I understand that some people have a very strong need to be liked and approved of (my WXH and baby sister would probably place that as their #1 EN). BUT if they defend doing something vile, disgusting, and which has the ability to devastate children, and THEREFORE they get 2X4'd, they are in effect depriving themselves of the admiration and approval they seek, right? Maybe the ONLY way they'll stop their adultery is if they are consistantly confronted with the yucky reality of what they are doing? Maybe one of the main reasons they continue their adultery is because it is so easy for them to get people to comfort and 'support' them, to basically agree with them that their wants and feelings are more important than their BS's and children. THE most effective lever for prying them out of the adultery fog, their own strong desire to be seen as decent folks, is effectively dismantled any time they are supported, defended, 'protected' from the 2X4's wielded by those who care about adulteries victims.

Call me 'insensitive' but the truth is I am just more concerned about the innocent children that adulterers hurt with their selfishness, than I am about offending those who destroy families. And NO I will never be 'recovered enough' to 'care' more for the adulterers than I do for their children; I will never in any way help them feel OK about what they're doing to their BS's and BC!

And I find it hard to believe that active adulterers who come here are very upset by the 2X4's anyway. They're surptised and angry to be sure, because they've gotten so much pro-adultery reinforcement before they get here, IRL and from media and movies, that it probably comes as quite a shock to them to have somebody not stroke their egos and stoke the justification bonfire that keeps them in the smoke(fog) of adultery.

My baby sister has basically lived most of her life choosing to engage in immoral destructive behaviors (harmful to others too - not just affecting herself). She practically goes berserk if anyone shows the slightest disapproval of her choices or dares to show her the consequences, practically DEMANDS endorsement of her activities. SHE has a conflict: she wants approval but she also wants to do things that we don't approve of. HER problem is that HER choice of activities is preventing her from getting her #1 need met by those who love her. So she gets that need met via illegitamate ways, then pretends that she had to get that need met by OP's because those who love her supposedly 'don't care'... Ah what a clever little justification that game is...

My WXH has taken a different route: If the ones who really love and care for him don't approve of his choices (um because he is hurting us), then he will surround himself with sycophantish OW and adultery enablers who care about his feeeelings and lusts.
He has chosen to be satisfied with the adoration he can get from conning strangers, and whining to his mommy and sisters, versus the real respect he could get from his daughters if he stopped living a lifestyle of sexual immaturity and irresponsibility.

Both unfairly and dishonestly leave out of their whining to the OP's that the REASON they don't get what they want from their BS's and children is because they keep hurting their BS's and BC with adulteries. Even when/if their BS and BC did show them respect and admiration (before the adultery, during Plan A, during false recoveries) they cheat anyway. It is the adultery that started and perpetuates the downward spiral, of them not getting the respect and admiration they use as an excuse to cheat.

My WXH has been castrated and ruined by the coddling from OW and well-meaning family and friends.

He's like one of those frogs that has been boiled alive.
It sure feeeeeeels good to him BTW to be basked in the warmth and comfort of all those folks who would never offend or upset him by tossing him out into the coldness of reality. The more they say soothing words to 'protect' him from his own conscience, the more any chance of him ever actually becoming a man worthy of real respect and admiration gets cooked.

I would like those who condemn the 2x4 wielding, truth speaking, posters here to keep one thing in mind:
The children of the active adulterers who come here are hoping and praying that SOMEBODY will tell their mommy or daddy to stop doing what they're doing. Those children do not want a 'civil' divorce, they do not a want the OP to become their new step-parent, and no they do not want their parents to just stay together and fight either. What those children want, Need, DESERVE, is for the adultery to be ended ASAP, and their parents to learn how to make their marriage happy. It is not wrong for the children to want that; it is not wrong for the posters here to help them get that, even if it means the adulterous parent will temporarily go into a rage of selfishness in resisting that.

I understood as a child of a WP, and my daughters get it too, something that some of the posters here have yet to grasp:

You cannot help active adulterers feel good AND help their children too. The children of adulterers don't exactly appreciate it that their adulterous parent can so easily find a LOT of support and comfort while still committing adultery.
Those children want daddy's co-workers to let him know they disapprove; they want grandma and grandpa to speak up and say that the adultery is wrong, to express disgust rather than 'support' if the adultery continues; they want mommy's friends to stop 'supporting' her 'feelings'... and they want the posters at MB's to confront their adulterous parent with the 2x4's of truth.

Posted By: Marshmallow Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 03:57 PM
Excellent post, MM.

I read this article yesterday and it reminded me of this thread.

Here's the part that jumped out at me.

Quote
The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of "The Dark Knight" itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified...

Left and right, all Americans know that freedom is better than slavery, that love is better than hate, kindness better than cruelty, tolerance better than bigotry. We don't always know how we know these things, and yet mysteriously we know them nonetheless.

The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.

When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, "He has to run away -- because we have to chase him."

Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous.

LINK

Posted By: Resonance Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 04:01 PM
What a great thread! Mrs W, Mel, Rprynne and others...you continue to teach me, and for that I am very grateful! grin

Quote
I think FWS's are awesome. I really do. That is what puzzles me about Aphelions posts on this thread. No wonder his marriage is still unsatisfying. His wife can smell his attitude a mile away.

BK, I agree. I think maybe his need to attack (or should I say "attempt" to attack) FWWs here gives him some satisfaction. Maybe because it is something he hasn't been able to do with his own wife.

Once again, Aph, your need to have your ENs filled is showing! wink Interestingly, though, your posts do not anger me...rather I feel a deep sadness for you and all that you have endured. What I wish you would finally see is that Loving Detachment, while it is good for a time, is not meant to be a way of life- especially in a marriage. One of these days (and from the tone of your posts, it may not be far off) you are going to realize that merely settling for what life has thrown your way is not making you happy, as you would have us believe. I really hope that day comes, because then you can be happy in the way you were (we ALL were) meant to be. (uh-oh, do you 'spy' a sentence ending with a preposition!)

But, I agree completely that other's opinions of us do not matter. We are all responsible for what we internalize and then allow to hurt us or define us. That goes for everyone. Those who can successfully know their worth without relying on other's assessments are the happiest people IMO.

Now if I could only do it myself all the time! LOL!
Posted By: mimi_here Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 04:08 PM
There is also DANGER in going to the opposite extreme, becoming sanctimonious and self-righteous, casting oneself as superior to others, as speaking and knowing the only real truth.

I consider HUMILITY to be a VIRTUE.
Posted By: Resonance Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 04:18 PM
Amen, Mimi!

Meremortal...fantastic! It is hard to keep from being sucked into the PC frame of mind. There are many here who speak real truth, but sadly it isn't found in the "real world" very much anymore. I believe it will eventually lead to our society's demise.
Posted By: meremortal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 04:40 PM
"There is also DANGER in going to the opposite extreme, becoming sanctimonious and self-righteous, casting oneself as superior to others, as speaking and knowing the only real truth.

I consider HUMILITY to be a VIRTUE."

Do you assume that placing the welfare of children above the selfish lusts of adulterers as being an "extreme", "sanctimonious", being "self-righteous", a pretense of "superiority", a lack of "humility"?

Is the evidence that divorce hurts children just one of many "truths", not real truth, not the "only" truth?

Adultery is evil.
Adulterers are dong evil deeds that harm innocent children.

Failure to acknowledge those truths is in itself an evil in that it chooses to defend those who harm children vs to defend children from harm.

Sometimes it is more important to say and do the right thing even if you will be called names and criticized, will become unpopular, for doing so.

Posters like MEDC do break some rules sometimes,
are mere mortals and can be provoked,
but there has NEVER been any doubt IMHO that MEDC was a hero,
somebody willing to speak the truth even if the pc didn't like it.

I think what you are failing to get is that some people just aren't all that concerned about being popular.

Let's see, do we care more about children or about being liked by active adulterers?

Not a tough decision for some of us.

I am a mere mortal, not a 'goddess', not a selfish adulterer breaking hearts because I believe making myself feeeeeel good is all that matters. If that's not humble enough for adulterer-coddlers, oh well...

Posted By: mimi_here Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 04:56 PM
Quote
Do you assume that placing the welfare of children above the selfish lusts of adulterers as being an "extreme", "sanctimonious", being "self-righteous", a pretense of "superiority", a lack of "humility"?

NO!! I was not referring to YOUR post which I agree with WHOLEHEARTEDLY!!

I'm not sure WHY you went THERE.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 05:02 PM
Quote
Posters like MEDC do break some rules sometimes,
are mere mortals and can be provoked,
but there has NEVER been any doubt IMHO that MEDC was a hero,
somebody willing to speak the truth even if the pc didn't like it.

blush

thank you.
Posted By: Pepperband Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 05:28 PM
Originally Posted by meremortal
I've seen implications posted that the reason some of the BS's get so upset by what unrepentent, active adulterers post, is because the BS's are vengeful, unforgiving, 'stuck', (jealous?), whatever...

And recovery does not mean that a LIE will be called a 'different but equally valid POV'!

BRAVO Mere !


link to one of my favorites on this topic

written by Weaver - now Josie Jones

Posted By: Resonance Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 05:29 PM
Mimi, I didn't think that's what you meant. That's why I said "Amen!" I won't go into how I took it or to what/whom you were referring, but I interpreted it differently than MM.

MM-you are on a roll...said it all perfectly. I wish more people thought the way you do!

And I agree about medc!! Heroes are straight-talkers who also practice what they preach. Not only does he do both, he is an advocate who helps other achieve that same goal. I can't help but chuckle when the pc police are so shocked and shaken by his comments. He thwacked my ignorance and called me a troll when I first came here in all of my fogginess...and yet I have quoted what he said to me more times than I can count because of how much I appreciate his words now.
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 09:49 PM
Quote
I can't help but chuckle when the pc police are so shocked and shaken by his comments.
I'm not sure if I am considered to be one of the "pc police" because after returning after another long absence I reported a thread on which an active Wayward was told to go commit suicide. I wasn't shocked or shaken by the poster's comments; what shocked me was that no one who was posting on the thread said anything about it, as if it had become acceptable behavior on MB. I was encouraged when a Moderator edited it.

I do my best to deal with active Waywards and OW's (currently active or not) IRL like I deal with them online--with honesty and compassion instead of with disrespect. It amazes me how many I come across but I think that has a lot to do with being able to recognize them because of what I've learned during my own recovery process. I seem to be able to pick out "affairages" more and more too and, to be honest, I keep my distance because I want neither to support them nor treat them with disrespect. My boundary is if I cannot be both honest and compassionate then I don't get involved, IRL or online. I'm not very good with the written word but I've reached several in person IRL.


Quote
I am a mere mortal, not a 'goddess', not a selfish adulterer breaking hearts because I believe making myself feeeeeel good is all that matters.
I would have a different view of posters yelling, name calling, telling an active Wayward to go commit suicide, and other disrespectful behaviors if they have been effective in reaching active Waywards and OW's using those same means IRL but I don't believe that they do it IRL. I might be mistaken, though. The one experience I have with using similar tactics IRL resulted in attempted assault (thank goodness for a short barrier that held). I'm not saying that I would have deserved being assaulted but I was responsible for putting myself in that position and for using what I've learned about Waywards and OW's to push just the right buttons in just the right way. It felt good in the moment. It felt really good. And I felt justified. I wasn't.


Quote
Let's see, do we care more about children or about being liked by active adulterers?
And the children that I was so concerned about and the reason that my emotions were running so high? God only knows what happened to them that day after I wound their mother up and she spun out. Although I got lots of kudos from several people, I regret my behavior to this day and I'm quick to say that when the incident is referenced (the incident went on for a while, was loud, and attracted a lot of attention). Many people think that I did a good thing that day but I know better.

And I'm grateful that I know better.


Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 09:49 PM
Quote
And I agree about medc!! Heroes are straight-talkers who also practice what they preach. Not only does he do both, he is an advocate who helps other achieve that same goal. I can't help but chuckle when the pc police are so shocked and shaken by his comments. He thwacked my ignorance and called me a troll when I first came here in all of my fogginess...and yet I have quoted what he said to me more times than I can count because of how much I appreciate his words now.

blush

blush

I am glad some of those words got through LaLa. Thank you for your kind words.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 09:54 PM
LB...you missed the point of the posts...and there is no point going back and trying to recreate it...suffice to say though... a child would have an easier time dealing with suicide than what that poster was doing to her family.

Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 10:03 PM
Quote
LB...you missed the point of the posts...and there is no point going back and trying to recreate it...
I'm not talking about the "point" of the posts. I'm talking about breaking our agreement to abide by the TOS when making our points. We all checked the box when we signed up.


Quote
suffice to say though... a child would have an easier time dealing with suicide than what that poster was doing to her family.
Not according to experts in the fields of addiction and suicide. I agree with the experts in this matter. I can agree to disagree with you.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Posted By: meremortal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 10:48 PM
Quote:I am a mere mortal, not a 'goddess', not a selfish adulterer breaking hearts because I believe making myself feeeeeel good is all that matters.

I don't understand what that statement from me has to do with the following response:

"I would have a different view of posters yelling, name calling, telling an active Wayward to go commit suicide, and other disrespectful behaviors if they have been effective in reaching active Waywards and OW's using those same means IRL but I don't believe that they do it IRL."

That banned behavior is relatively rare here, and is edited, AND is totally irrelevent to most of the pc policing.

BUT there is also a whole lot of whining about 2x4'ing that does not involve name-calling, yelling, or telling somebody to commit suicide. In fact if the pc police limited their complaints to only the rare incidents of the above-referenced examples, there'd be no feud over posting 'styles'.

Being 'supportive' and empathizing with adulterers isn't effective at ending adultery either. If that really were true then wouldn't adulterers be stopping adultery because of the vast amount of support and understanding they already get?
And even if it were, since adulterers are immersed in a society steeped with adultery justifying and endorsing, do they really need to be 'understood' vs confronted here too?

Sometimes WS's come here, and don't hear what they want to hear, they can still go hear it IRL and the media.

Meanwhile their BS's probably really need to come here to get away from all the adultery sympathizers IRL and the media.

Which is really the greater need? The need that isn't being met IRL?

Also, when people engage in disrespectful behaviors, say and do things that upset other people, sometimes they are reacted to in a disrespectful manner. Not only are the extreme examples that are used as excuses to censor and chastise relatively rare compared to all the more moderate postings that the pc wish to silence, but they are also rare compared to the amount of active adulterer rudeness.

Sure some WS's come here foggy but willing to try...
but there are also many who come here openly flaunting their adultery with ZERO concern for their BS's or even BC. They're hateful, selfish, cruel AND RUDE. They're not exactly victims in need of protection! Whether or not it is right or effective to post back to them in kind, let's not overlook the fact that they are being rude and disrespectful - AND more importantly, are excusing inflicting immense harm on their BS's and BC.

Being 'made' to feel ashamed or guilty for doing an evil deed is not being a victim BTW. And refusing to take responsibility for doing an evil deed, refusing to stop inflicting harm, and whining about posters being 'judgemental' because you're won't repent, are not indications of being anywhere near a *F*WS, that would quickly stop the adultery if people here would just be nice ot them.

Let's stop pretending that the active adulterers who start arguments here aren't upsetting the BS's who post here, or that there must be something wrong with the BS's if they do get upset.
THAT is disrespectful to the BS's IMHO.

If we were at a meeting for people recovering from harm done by drunk drivers, it would be majorly disrespectful for a drunk person to stumble in and start talking about how much fun they have drinking and driving. AND it is also rude and cruel to then accuse the victims of not being mature enough or voer it enough, or of being vindictive, if they are offended by such an insensitive act. I mean there's foggy and there's just plain rude. Does it never occur to the pc police that they are being manipulated by trolls and bully adulterers into attacking BS's? What fun it must be for the adulterers to come here and stir up trouble. What a sick, cruel, DISRESPECTFUL sport.

Aren't we advised to not try to talk to WS's when they are so deep in the fog that everything they spew is fog-babble? Aren't we warned to refuse communication with them in Plan B partly because they will just inflict more harm? I'm sorry but I never read that it was part of Plan B to help the adulterers feel better about what they're doing, to listen to their justifications, and sympathize with them.

Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 11:09 PM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
Oh crap, I just can't let this go.

Okay, if you are going to build a ship you would need to study what floats, not what sinks.

Yes.


Quote
I am not trying to determine why the rock sinks, I am trying to determine why the duck floats.

Is a duck's butt waterproof? (I always look for oppor2nities 2 use that question in life).

Your approach is reasonable, but I would argue that you don't grab the rock because it sank, you don't grab it because it was never floating 2 begin with. I would submit that if you DID find a floating rock (pumice is a rock that floats), you probably would give it a once over if you were thinking about building something 2 float. ...and then probably give it 2 your kids when you realized it wasn't a good building material for boats (though boats are built of things like steel and concrete that don't float).

[quoteIn other words, if I was trying to determine why some people have a good marriage, why some people are faithful, why some people are successful at life, I would look to the good marriages and the faithful people to see what they are doing to get that way.[/quote]

Also reasonable.

Quote
That is my whole point about waywards. If they truly want to change their lives, to have good marriages, they will look to those that have accomplished that. They won't be wasting their time with a bunch of other waywards.

Yes. Good. But who entices them 2 seek help from people with good, or otherwise recovered marriages? I would agree that another wayward is more often going 2 be the blind leading the blind, but it might not always be. (Steve Harley asked me, when we were on a similar topic, "Can a hypocrite give good advice?". You know what the answer was? (below).) On this board, then, I believe it is the responsibility, if possible (it might not be) for FWSs and FBSs first, perhaps, and then maybe BSs and WSs, in this order, 2 make the effort 2 steer the active waywards in the right direction, at least for the benefit of that wayward's BS.

Quote
It is not so difficult to do. I did it, and I did it by studying those who were successful, not by studying those who weren't.

This worked for you. Good. For me, it was useful 2 study everybody (that would allow that), particularly since I was living with a WW who wouldn't talk 2 me much about what was going on in her haid.

Quote
I'm not an aeronautic engineer.

Neither am I. I'm a rocket scientist! ;oD

Quote
I couldn't care less why things sink or crash to the ground. I want to know what works.

But in a plan to change things, one must keep track of what doesn't work, in order to apply a different course of action. But that's not what I'm talking about.

Agreed, and you don't need 2 be talking about it if you don't want 2. I do need 2, or at least did need 2, however. It's like the studies of the Titanic sinking after the disaster. Remember, it was the 2nd of 3 of those ships built. the Brittanic was still under construction, when Titanic sank and left Jack and Rose clinging 2 that mantle (;oD). They modified it so it wouldn't sink like Titanic did (and it didn't sink like Titanic, it sank faster, but because it struck a mine, not an iceberg, and the portholes had been left open. Even more of a sidebar: Funny thing is that most people forget the Olympic, which was the first of the three built. It sank a German U-boat during WWI by ramming it (causing all kinds of damage 2 the Olympic in the process, but it didn't sink). It even kept going until well in2 the 20's, and was nicknamed "Old Reliable" as a result. End of sidebar:

-ol' 2long

Edited 2 add:

Answer, "Of course." Think about why that is.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/26/08 11:57 PM
Originally Posted by LovingBoundaries
Quote
LB...you missed the point of the posts...and there is no point going back and trying to recreate it...
I'm not talking about the "point" of the posts. I'm talking about breaking our agreement to abide by the TOS when making our points. We all checked the box when we signed up.


Quote
suffice to say though... a child would have an easier time dealing with suicide than what that poster was doing to her family.
Not according to experts in the fields of addiction and suicide. I agree with the experts in this matter. I can agree to disagree with you.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

but the thing is..it isn't YOUR job to enforce the TOS. I didn't agree to a box that gave YOU the authority to edit anything. So, report a post...if the mods see a problem...THEY will edit.

I would LOVE to see a study that shows what the impact is of a parent continually assaulting a family versus suicide.

I am okay to agree to disagree.
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 12:54 AM
Quote
I don't understand what that statement from me has to do with the following response:
I'm sorry that I was confusing, meremortal. Thank you for telling me. I don't do as well with the written as I wish that I did. I'll try to explain it more clearly.


Quote
not a selfish adulterer breaking hearts because I believe making myself feeeeeel good is all that matters
What I tried to say (in the whole paragraph, not just the first part of it) was in response to that part of the quote. I probably should have deleted the first part. Sorry about that.

What I tried to say is that in the incident that I wrote about, I behaved in a way that felt good in the moment with no regard to the children who would be in the care of that OW afterward. In that moment, disregarding the effects my actions could have on that OW's children was no different than a Wayward or OW disregarding the effects their behavior could have on the children. What else did we have in common? It felt good and felt justified.


Quote
That banned behavior is relatively rare here, and is edited, AND is totally irrelevent to most of the pc policing.
I am very happy and relieved to hear that. A Moderator showed up within minutes of being notified and the thread seemed to be watched pretty closely after that.


Quote
In fact if the pc police limited their complaints to only the rare incidents of the above-referenced examples, there'd be no feud over posting 'styles'.
I agree with you. In the past, my posting "style" has been attacked by others who don't agree with it. I believe that different people are reached through different "styles" and I believe that it's up to the Moderators to tell someone to go away, not any of us, especially if it's our "style" that isn't getting through to them. Maybe someone else's will.


Quote
And even if it were, since adulterers are immersed in a society steeped with adultery justifying and endorsing, do they really need to be 'understood' vs confronted here too?
Understanding them helps me to effectively confront them, just like studying OW's to understand them helped me to be effective in getting rid of the one who wanted to harm my children. I am a strong believer in being both honest and compassionate, but that does not mean that I'm supportive of their adultery or showing them sympathy. Not by a longshot. I've never had a Wayward or OW be confused in the least about that! laugh


Quote
Also, when people engage in disrespectful behaviors, say and do things that upset other people, sometimes they are reacted to in a disrespectful manner.
I agree, and I see it going both ways. I think disrespect by Betrayeds is against the TOS the same as it is by Waywards and OW's. Believe me, if I thought that engaging in disrespectful behavior was good for a Betrayed, I would start a thread for it myself and tell you some of my "classics." But I know that it doesn't help us move forward in recovery and can actually hinder our recovery.


Quote
Let's stop pretending that the active adulterers who start arguments here aren't upsetting the BS's who post here, or that there must be something wrong with the BS's if they do get upset.
THAT is disrespectful to the BS's IMHO.
I get upset myself when that happens. But if I can't refrain from engaging with them on their level, I don't post on the thread. If it's too upsetting for me, I don't continue to read it. I don't think that makes me a wimp or anything, it's just that I know that oftentimes the reaction is what floats their boat (IRL I use a vulgar term that I think is more fitting, but that darn TOS you know laugh ).

I wouldn't want to play into the hands of active Waywards and OW's who are just here for sport. I wouldn't want to be the source of their glee. I wouldn't want to be a part of one particular game where OW pretends to be "her guy" and gets the BS's to drive him back to her instead of to his BW. But what else do they have to do while waiting for their phones to ring when "their guy" is taking a dump? (Ever notice how many get called from the bathroom? It's weird! LOL)


I hope that I've been more clear, meremortal. Thank you again for telling me.


ETA: Sorry for being so slow in getting back with you.
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 01:26 AM
Quote
but the thing is..it isn't YOUR job to enforce the TOS.
I agree with you, medc. That's why I reported the thread to the Moderator.

I also posted that I reported the thread and why I reported it. That way, if it did NOT get edited then anyone reading the thread at that time or in the future would know that it was within the TOS and not that the Moderators didn't happen to see it.

I'm sure that the Moderators get a lot of threads reported that don't get edited because they are not in violation of the TOS. When I reported that thread, I wasn't sure if it would be edited or not. It was up to the Moderator and I would have accepted the decision either way. If it wasn't edited I would have wondered why and might have emailed to ask, but that would have been to get a better understanding so that I wouldn't waste their time in the future by reporting threads that were not in violation of the TOS.

medc, if you ever get the impression that I am trying to enforce the TOS, please say something to me about it. That is not my intention at all.

Want to hear something funny? I didn't even want to be the one to report it, but it didn't look like anyone else was going to. Discussing different views about posting, sure.....being responsible for "policing" the board, no way! laugh


Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 02:19 AM
This has all been wonderful stuff. So much to take in and absorb.

Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 02:59 AM
This thread has gone on so long I've almost forgotten the original questions.

But to answer at least one of them, yes I believe a repentant FWS has a lot to offer. I believe a healthily recovered BS has a lot to offer.

If we didn't believe in redemption, why would any of us be here? There are myriads of places to go to cry over life's injustices or hardships. But this place offers solutions, and we should be happy every time we see someone "get it", be it a FWS or a BS.

If we believe no WS can ever be 100% forgiven and reinstated into the state of grace, there would be no purpose for this place at all. We would just recommend anyone who is ever betrayed to immediately go to Plan D, no questions asked.

I'm grateful to every recovered person here, former wayward or former betrayed, who is truly trying to help save marriages in a healthy way, whether it is through prayer, Biblical counsel, or harsh 2x4s. As long as it is within reasonable bounds, and an underlying sense of truth and Christian caring is present, I don't care which styles are used, because different approaches will reach different people.

We are all big boys and girls and if we REALLY want to learn, we will be happy for the lessons and not overly concerned about the delivery.

Just my 2 cents, FWIW.
Posted By: Resonance Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 03:42 AM
Quote
We are all big boys and girls and if we REALLY want to learn, we will be happy for the lessons and not overly concerned about the delivery.

Absolutely! Good post keepitreal, and well said.

And medc...you are welcome...and appreciated!
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 07:20 AM
Ok, I've admitted to a major personality flaw of mine. I don't even know if it's really a flaw, it's part of who I am and I'm aware of it and I try to work on it. There are also many good personality traits I own.

Pep and Mel and others have said what their personalities are. Should they be changed or should we accept everyone as different. Personally, I accept that we are all different. We are made up of our FOO, our life experiences, our innate personalities, our genetic makeup, our beliefs, our self awareness or having no self awareness at all.

I can't accept we're all perfect. We just aren't. We're all flawed human beings in one way or another.

I'd really be interested to see what people see as their flaws (for want of a better word) and, even more interested in the pluses in their personalities.
Posted By: Lady_Clueless Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 01:43 PM
I've been reading this thread with some interest.

I believe that 2x4s can be civilly given, and are often very, very necessary for WS.

I DO see a lot of posts that seem to be molly-coddling a WS, and it seems to me that they serve to help keep the wayward mentality going.

Molly-coddling a WS with gentle, and even some psycho-babblish posts, can actually entrench them into an attitude of entitlement. Writing things to make them "feel good" can actually hurt them in the long run. They will like the posters who made them feel good, and get angry at the posters who deliver the 2x4.

Which words do you think the WS will think the most about? Sure, they'll remember that the "Feel-good Poster" made kind remarks to them.

However, when someone says something to you that makes you angry, what do you do? Well, if you're like me, you probably go over and over WHAT THEY SAID for quite a while, until the anger finaly dissipates...and, often, by that time, I have, in my personal experience, managed to figure out the truth of what that person was saying.

Active WS SHOULD feel badly about what they are doing. They SHOULD be told that they are destroying their children's lives. They SHOULD be told that they are willfully sinning.

Active WS DO lie like rugs, and should be called on their lies.

They SHOULD be told that the OP is NOT the wonderful person they think he/she is.

Yes, telling WS all this stuff makes them angry, but it is the TRUTH. The TRUTH is what they NEED. Might not be what they WANT, but where has doing what they want gotten them so far? In a HUGE mess, that's where!
Posted By: TogetherAlone Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 02:29 PM
Quote
Active WS SHOULD feel badly about what they are doing. They SHOULD be told that they are destroying their children's lives. They SHOULD be told that they are willfully sinning.

I think this illustrates an important point.

Demonstrating to someone how their behaviour is damaging themselves and others, and how their choices will have painful consequences, is respectful.

Telling someone that they are a worthless human being is NOT respectful.

I suspect the frustration of not being able to get the WS to 'feel badly about what they are doing' is what tempts people to attack the person, rather than the behaviour.

TA

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 02:44 PM
Quote
Telling someone that they are a worthless human being is NOT respectful.

Acting like/being a worthless human being is not respectful to those around them. Pointing out the obvious is, IMHO, just fine.


Quote
I suspect the frustration of not being able to get the WS to 'feel badly about what they are doing' is what tempts people to attack the person, rather than the behaviour.

or perhaps, sometimes people feel that the person...not only the behavior...needs a good whack across the head. When people do things long enough...they are defined by their behaviors...hence they are bad people(but, they can change).
Posted By: TogetherAlone Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 03:28 PM
Quote
Acting like/being a worthless human being is not respectful to those around them. Pointing out the obvious is, IMHO, just fine.

So, if someone is acting disrespectfully, it's therefore OK to retaliate by acting disrespectfully in return? Sounds like playground morality to me.

Does returning disrespect with disrespect tell the person that there's anything wrong with being disrespectful? Is it supposed to annoy the person and then make them wake up to the fact that they're being disrespectful too? Or does it lower their estimation of the person who's behaving just as badly as they are themselves, and make it seem OK for them to get down to the same level?

It seems to me that shame actually arises in the good part of a person - the part that wants to love and respect others. A WS has usually closed off that part of themselves in order to do what they're doing. If that part needs to be brought back to life, it doesn't seem to me that telling the person that they're wall-to-wall scum is going to wake them up to their own conscience. All it does is to harden their defences and give them a target to attack other than their own behaviour.



TA
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 03:47 PM
I do not think it is disrespectful to call evil by its true name. I think you are doing them a great disservice by not doing this.

Thankfully the liberal attitude that you have is not shared by all.

What you might decide is disrespectful to you...may not be to other people (as evidenced by some of the comments on this thread). I have used very aggressive comments and approaches with some posters...and will continue to do so...as it yields very good results with some people (and for those it doesn't...there are always posters like you and LA to pick up the slack). Different approaches reach different people.

Personally, I have found some of the more liberal posters on these boards to be hugely disrespectful to BS. The thing is, I am not looking for the seal of approval from any poster here...I post what I think and feel and if the mods decide it needs to be edited...so be it.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 04:33 PM
This is a futile argument since we all have different notions of what constitutes "disrespect." We will never agree on what constitutes disrespect because it is so subjective. One man's notion of disrespect is another man's notion of straight talk. Personally, I consider it disrespectful to tell other posters how to post. But so what? You know what they say about opinions. wink

In the end it doesn't matter one damn whit what I think of another posters level of "respect," all that matters is what the MODS THINK.

These discussions NEVER go anywhere because we have no control over other posters, so I just don't know why we keep doing this. No one is going to change their posting style to suit another poster, so what is the point? I have been told I am mean and disrespectful for years, but do I care? Nope.

I much prefer to focus my energy on the one thing I CAN CONTROL: MY OWN POSTS. I would much rather focus on something that is positive and produces RESULTS: helping other people around here. Griping about other posters helps no one and avails nothing.
Posted By: mimi_here Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 04:44 PM
Quote
In the end it doesn't matter one damn whit what I think of another posters level of "respect," all that matters is what the MODS THINK.

This seems dishonest to me....

This is an INCREDIBLE statement....

AMAZING!!
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 04:46 PM
Originally Posted by mimi_here
Quote
In the end it doesn't matter one damn whit what I think of another posters level of "respect," all that matters is what the MODS THINK.

This seems dishonest to me. IMO, this is saying alot about who you are.

Please explain? I am not getting your point. crazy
Posted By: mimi_here Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 04:50 PM
Same here.....

It doesn't matter what YOU think but it matters what the MODS think?

That's confusing to me.

What's the truth?
Posted By: mimi_here Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 04:52 PM
Oh. Now I understand. You mean the the MB MODERATORS in the PLURAL SENSE. I get it now. Never mind.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 04:52 PM
What in the WORLD are you talking about? crazy
Posted By: schoolbus Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 04:58 PM
Mimi,

When I read Mel's statement about what "mattered" in regards to opinions, what I got out of that was this:

In the end, the only opinion around the BOARDS regarding "respect" that matters is the mods because they have editing power. They can edit any post, any time. They can change a post - and in the end, remove the poster forever (well, except maybe in the case of BA sick). So their opinion matters because they make the decisions around here.

IRL, of course, your opinion matters, mine does, everyone else's "matters".
Just not in the same way.

That's what I got out of what Mel said.

SB
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 05:03 PM
Exactly, SB. I can wring my hands til the cows come home about the posting styles of others, but it will avail NOTHING because I have NO POWER over other posters. Who CARES if I think someone's posting style sucks? NO ONE.

People post in the manner that suits THEM, not other posters. So griping about is does nothing but take up bandwidth, annoy others and distract attention away from productive activities, like helping newcomers.
Posted By: mimi_here Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 05:04 PM
Thanks Schoolbus!!

OT/TJ: I got THE GATHERING OF OLD MEN..savoring the chance to begin reading!
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 05:06 PM
Quote
I just don't know why we keep doing this.

Oh, I know WHY. There are some posters here that think they are the "post" police. Some of them actaully think that they will get us all to post as they see fit. Uh, nope...not gonna happen.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 05:07 PM
Quote
Who CARES if I think your posting style sucks? NO ONE.

There you go again Mel....not feeling like you can express your true feelings!

LOL.

wink
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 05:08 PM
laugh
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 05:15 PM
Quote
No one is going to change their posting style to suit another poster, so what is the point?
For me, the point to this thread is to come to a better understanding of others on the board as well as myself with regard to posting. Among other things, it helps me to evaluate what and how I will or will not post.

Another point for me was to find out if we are all required to follow the TOS or just some of us....or if the TOS is merely a suggestion instead of a rule.


Quote
In the end it doesn't matter one damn whit what I think of another posters level of "respect," all that matters is what the MODS THINK.
I agree. As board members, we can express our differing opinions about certain behaviors. Regardless of what each of us thinks is disrespectful behavior, the Moderators determine what is allowed and what isn't....not us. The Moderators also determine who can stay and who must leave....not us.

I don't know if each Moderator acts according to their own views and opinions of what they consider to be disrespectful behavior (or not), or if they are required to enforce an MB-approved definition and list of behaviors. If anyone knows, I would be interested in finding out how that works and what the requirements are to become a Moderator.


Quote
I would much rather focus on something that is positive: helping others learn about Marriage Builders.
These types of threads do help me learn about Marriage Builders and applying the MB concepts in my life. That's why I read them and sometimes post to them. In fact, these types of threads are useful to me in exposing the areas I need to work on. Maybe I'm the only person to ever have had these types of threads be useful in that way.... but different methods reach different people, right? laugh


Posted By: committedandlovi Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 05:20 PM
Originally Posted by medc
Quote
I just don't know why we keep doing this.

Oh, I know WHY. There are some posters here that think they are the "post" police. Some of them actaully think that they will get us all to post as they see fit. Uh, nope...not gonna happen.

Kinda like some people think that they are the "thread" police and if a thread has no value to them...they want her shut down.

There is value to these types of threads...to someone...somewhere.

committed whistle
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 05:27 PM
LB, I am glad SOMEONE HERE benefits from these handwringing sessions about disrespectful OTHER posters, because I sure don't. And I have NEVER seen anyone change because of it and never seen it accomplish anything other than annoyance and resentment. I think most posters post in the manner and style that SUITS THEM, not others. Unless they are the kind of person who looks to others for their identity.

I appreciate and greatly VALUE the diversity of styles on this forum and wouldn't dream of suggesting anyone change their style to suit me. That is profoundly disrespectful, if you ask me. If we all posted like little politically correct robotons who danced to the tune of some puppet master, this would be a horrible place that would benefit very few.

I much prefer to RESPECT AND VALUE our differences instead of trying to make others dance to my tune. [a fruitless endeavor]

Lovingboundaries, I accept you how you ARE TODAY and see VALUE in your contributions. smile
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 06:31 PM
Quote
I accept you how you ARE TODAY and see VALUE in your contributions.
Thank you, that was nice of you to say. Of course, accepting how I am today doesn't mean that you approve of me and the value you see in my contributions might be the kind that spotlights what not to do! laugh

I thought you would appreciate the humor and appreciate the fact that it wouldn't matter to me if that is exactly what you meant...it was still nice of you to say. laugh laugh laugh

Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 06:38 PM
Originally Posted by LovingBoundaries
Quote
I accept you how you ARE TODAY and see VALUE in your contributions.
Thank you, that was nice of you to say. Of course, accepting how I am today doesn't mean that you approve of me and the value you see in my contributions might be the kind that spotlights what not to do! laugh

That is exactly right! And the answer is that you don't need my approval! Not today and not tomorrow. I don't need your approval and you don't need mine. smile
Posted By: schoolbus Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/27/08 06:54 PM
mimi,

Glad you got the book! Savory read, that one!
sorry for the slight t/j, all.

To the rest of the thread.....

I just finished a book that is appropriate to MB, and to this thread in particular. It is called Leadership and Self-Deception: Getting out of the Box, by The Arbinger Institute.

Now, this is a very interesting read. When I picked it up I thought I wanted it because "my boss needed it" and I wanted a way to help change my boss's behavior.

Was I wrong.

Way off the mark.

It is a book that really hits home and forces a person in an extremely simplistic way to look inside and from a completely different perspective. While written for the job and work world, it is completely transferrable to homelife, marriage, kids, and friendship.

It takes its concepts from the philosophy framework, but it is completely a VERY easy read. Reminded me in a way of "Who Moved My Cheese?", but the material is directed at PERSONAL CHANGE. Really, at human change in general.

I can, and did, put it to use immediately, and the tone in my home is different - from the moment I finished the book.

Different. Relaxed. Happy - and yes, I can say, I AM HAPPIER.

Coming from a BS? Wow.


Just wow.

I can only imagine what this will do for a WS, too. There are apparently further studies available, as this book is only "Phase 1". I am looking for more.


SB
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 12:52 AM
Quote
Answer, "Of course." Think about why that is.

2long, I don't understand. Are you talking about the Olympic?

On the other point I was trying to make, I think I understand why you needed to understand the thoughts of the wayward, it's because you have always been successful, so you needed to understand the processes of someone who wasn't.

I was of the opposite position. So that may be it.



But on on the other side of the fence, the one where recovery is the topic. When does a FWW stop being a FWW?

Why are they kept in that role? When do people get to become what they really are, sans the past waywardness.

I was disheartened/baffled/pissed off that BS's don't get the F in front of their lables, but now I'm getting frustrated that FWS's are forever and ever on these boards known as FWW's.

This bothers me. If in fact that have returned to their true nature of non waywardness, why are they called upon to act as teachers/advisors to the wayward's? It seems to me that that would keep them in a kind of stuck position. Same with the formerly betrayed.

When do we all become just human beings again? former waywards and former betrayed alike?

It seems creepy to keep everyone in their past, ilking out advise to others who are traveling that same road.

I don't know. There could be a good reason, but I just don't see it right now.

Maybe 2long answered it already in his last post, but I still don't really care for the system.

I'll keep thinking on it. Perhaps others can share their thoughts or same frustrations.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 01:39 AM
IMHO, the label never leaves them. While they can rise above the behaviors that brought it to them in the first place...and be afforded the same level of respect as others...they DID commit the act...and therefore that is part of their former life....a resume of sorts. A criminal (and I liken waywards to criminals) always has as part of their record an accounting of their past misdeeds... a record. That doesn't mean that they cannot be good members of society and contribute as much if mot more than another...it just is about the accurate accounting of who they are and were.
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 01:41 AM
Kiwi, in response to this -
Quote
I'd really be interested to see what people see as their flaws (for want of a better word) and, even more interested in the pluses in their personalities.
_________________________

I'll play. In fact it would be a very good idea for me to play, as my husband and I are having an incredible amount of trouble "synergizing" right now, and I need to really look at my flaws. Done looking at his, need to look at mine. grin

My pluses:

I love people.

My minuses:

I don't really need people.

Now where do you go with that? This board is so easy for me, because it doesn't require anything from me, really. As far as needing anyone, but my husband does.

My independence is becomming a problem. And it's not that I am so independent that I can't get along, it's that I don't really need anyone. And a husband wants to be needed.

How do you fix that?
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 01:48 AM
Quote
part of their former life.

But it's part of their former life.

Now Medc, I know you are somewhat of a spiritual person, so you know that it is wrong to live in the past. You know that our responisibility on this earth is to grow.

How can you grow when you are stitched to your past like a string to a kite.

How far can you possibly go with a past mistake hanging on you like a weight.

I think it is wrong.

I think it is also wrong for a criminal who has done his time and repented, to forever be tied to his wrong deed.

We only live once. We only have this one shot, and what is the point of becomming better people if we can't get away from the past?

Do you remember that passage from the Bible that ends with "rejoice in this day, for this day is a gift that God has giveth thee"...

It talks about how it is wrong to dwell in the past or to worry about the future.

Dang, I wish I could remember that passage.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 01:56 AM
I don't think it has to be a weight. I am forever linked to some things in my past and they've become my sails. A former drug dealer that now uses his past sins to help prevent others from making the same mistakes uses it as a sail and rudder.

How we use who we were in our new lives is entirely up to us. BUT, like the criminal whose record does and should follow him around...the past needs to be a constant reminder of what we can be if we lose our way.
Posted By: not2fun Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 09:50 AM
Originally Posted by medc
I don't think it has to be a weight. I am forever linked to some things in my past and they become my sails. A former drug dealer that now uses his past sins to help prevent others from making the same mistakes uses it as a sail and rudder.

How we use who we were in our new lives is entirely up to us. BUT, like the criminal whose record does and should follow him around...the past needs to be a constant reminder of what we can be if we lose our way.


excellent post MEDC.....you summed this up beautifully.....hmmmmm, have you been getting lessons from Mark??????.... wink


not2fun
Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 01:18 PM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Feel better iam? Now you've got that off your chest.

Y'know I'd laugh because, seriously, the stuff you're spouting is laughable but, you know something, I actually understand that you are in pain. See, I do have an empathy gene even though I'm an over indulged princess.

I'm not sure about your sitch - I'll look it up. BTW do I know you under another name?

Edited to add: I've looked up your sitch and you've had a very bad time. I still can't quite work out why you feel the need to attack me though but there must be some payoff. Do you feel relieved when you've let it all out, do you feel justified? Is it because I made an insensitive remark to you?

I've forgiven you about the insensitive remark.

I guess I can stop seeing my IC since I now have you to psychoanalyze me via the Internet? whistle

*edit*

You know, after reading this again I feel the need to add something.

You say you have empathy? You say you read my situation? Then you go and make comments about my feeling 'relieved when I let it out' and 'feeling justified'.

So you know, those are not things that someone who has empathy would say after reading my 'sitch'.

Those are things that a selfish person seeking to get in a poke at a wound would say.

But I guess it made you feel good about you so it's all good.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 01:36 PM
Thanks N2F.
Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 01:56 PM
This said regarding title, ā€œFormally Wayward Spouseā€:
Quote
IMHO, the label never leaves them. While they can rise above the behaviors that brought it to them in the first place...and be afforded the same level of respect as others...they DID commit the act...and therefore that is part of their former life....a resume of sorts. A criminal (and I liken waywards to criminals) always has as part of their record an accounting of their past misdeeds... a record. That doesn't mean that they cannot be good members of society and contribute as much if mot more than another...it just is about the accurate accounting of who they are and were.

What a diverse group we have here.

The ideals overtly summarized in the quoted paragraph above amount to a lifelong sentence from which a formally wayward spouse can never fully emerge. Forever branded with the scarlet mark? As noted, they can however, ā€œbe afforded the same level of respect as others,ā€ such a gracious gesture. How they can retain the title of ā€œformally wayward spouseā€ and be afforded the same level of respect as others is a mystery to us all. Realize of course, they will never really be fully equal, and certainly no hope of ever becoming equal with their betrayed spouse. In the philosophy outlined above the betrayed spouse will ALWAYS be ā€œmoreā€ equal. Thatā€™s not love.

Such a disheartening and forlorn life to live.

As the poster notes, the past should serve as a constant reminder of what we become if we lose our way, never truer words spoken. The past is indeed our greatest teacher. As the saying goes, ā€œthose who forget the past are destined to repeat it.ā€ But the past encompasses a fairly large bucket of experiences. A great many of those past experiences reflect the dangers and consequences of applying labels to our fellow citizens, especially labels that help promote hateful bias. To FOREVER brand a person with the mark of adultery helps to perpetuate a hateful and bitter bias against someone who may deserve nothing of the kind.

I have no doubt that there are a great many folks that will jump on the ā€œonce a formally wayward spouse, always a formally wayward spouseā€ bandwagon. I would ask those folks to consider the possibility that in the best recoveries such labels were lost a long time ago.

Straight talking,

Mr. G
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 02:10 PM
Quote
Forever branded with the scarlet mark?

A bit dramatic???

It's not like when a BS introduces their spouse they say ...here is my FWW. The brand is there for all to see.

The issue here is that the past is not erased...nor should it be. A former adulterer, a former drug user, a previously abusive spouse..etc, should all be afforded love and respect...but we should not erase their past as it serves as a protection against future injuries.

IMHO, the BEST recoveries on this board are those that have FWS that embrace their past, not as a positive to be honored, but as a marker for the character they showed in being able to change. The head in the sand people here that act as though it never happened are the ones that IMHO are most at risk for another affair.

Quote
such a gracious gesture.

well, actually, YES...it is a gracious gesture on the part of the BS. Very gracious.
Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 03:37 PM
Quote
The issue here is that the past is not erased...nor should it be. A former adulterer, a former drug user, a previously abusive spouse..etc, should all be afforded love and respect...but we should not erase their past as it serves as a protection against future injuries.

But you said so much more. You said the title ā€œformally wayward spouseā€ NEVER leaves them. It is this remark that I suggest is at the heart of a position that will prevent recovery, not help it. The past is just that, ā€œthe pastā€. It cannot be erased. As I said previously, the past is our greatest teacher and in the case of infidelity it will most certainly help protect against another occurrence. Your clear and lucid position on this point does not relieve you from your stated belief; ā€œIMHO, the label (formally wayward spouse) never leaves them.ā€ I think that it is this statement that exposes your underlining philosophy regarding how you will forever view a formally wayward spouse as ā€œalmostā€ equal.

Quote
It's not like when a BS introduces their spouse they say ...here is my FWW. The brand is there for all to see.

But if they think it or more importantly believe it, the damage is done. So I would say it is exactly like that.

You can own your stated position or reverse it, but there is little confusion over words themselves and what they mean.

Quote
IMHO, the BEST recoveries on this board are those that have FWS that embrace their past, not as a positive to be honored, but as a marker for the character they showed in being able to change.

Well said, indeed, this is a necessary prerequisite to achieving any meaningful recovery. However there are two sides to the recovery coin, the other side belongs to the betrayed spouse who MUST at some time forgive their spouse, not just in words but in the real sense of the word. It is in this arena that words like ā€œbetrayedā€ and ā€œwaywardā€ lose their significance and meaning. This canā€™t happen if one spouse will FOREVER perceive their spouse as a ā€œformally wayward spouseā€. There is a vast difference between ā€œforgivingā€ and ā€œforgettingā€. You can certainly forgive without forgetting although I expect that such an attribute might remain elusive or even undesirable to some.

Quote
The head in the sand people here that act as though it never happened are the ones that IMHO are most at risk for another affair.

I suppose I donā€™t spend enough time here to even know who those people are. I have a feeling that the regular posters who have long ago left these forums are the ones who really ā€œget-itā€ as they have returned to just living their lives without the necessity to validate their recovery from folks like you or me, something to possibly aspire to.

Mr. G
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 03:59 PM
Quote
This canā€™t happen if one spouse will FOREVER perceive their spouse as a ā€œformally wayward spouseā€.

says who???

Absent erasing the past...the person will always be a FWS. Former is the issue here. The past can't be erased. The marks we have left are part of our resume. For those that have committed crimes...it is called a record ( a recording of what they have done previously). As I said, I liken waywards to criminals.

What is punitive about recognizing the past? How is the FORMERLY wayward spouse harmed?

Quote
I have a feeling that the regular posters who have long ago left these forums are the ones who really ā€œget-itā€ as they have returned to just living their lives without the necessity to validate their recovery from folks like you or me, something to possibly aspire to.

I can't speak to people that have left...but I will say that there are some couples here that seem to get it quite well.

Quote
I think that it is this statement that exposes your underlining philosophy regarding how you will forever view a formally wayward spouse as ā€œalmostā€ equal.

This is an incorrect assumption on your part. Because you think it...doesn't make it so.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 04:05 PM
I don't view the label FW as a "scarlet letter" at all and it really surprises me that anyone could view it as such. The fact that anyone would view that label as an insult is telling in itself - it says THEY look down on that person themselves. "FW" is a compliment, IMO, to a person who did wrong and overcame their wrongdoing. That is HONORABLE, not something that one needs to feel shame about. The ones who should feel ashamed are the ones who are currently wayward.

I am recovering alcoholic, but I would never dream of feeling ashamed of that. What? I am ashamed to be WHO I AM? THAT IS WHO I AM! If I deny it, THAT is the greatest INSULT! Stating a true fact about who I am does not shame me. I ACCEPT who I am and have nothing to hide; nothing to be ashamed OF. If i cannot accept the BAD about me, then I cannot accept the GOOD.

I would never insult myself by denying who I am really am. I am not perfect, I have been BAD in my past. That is not good, but what is good is that I changed my ways. I think it is a slap in the face for one to deny who they are. That is the GREATEST INSULT.

I will never forget that I am a recovering alcoholic. I don't go around yapping about that in my every day life, nor does my H introduce me as "my wife the drunk.' [nor do I ever bring up his wayward past] But if the subject comes up in certain circles, I will never deny WHO I AM, the good, the bad, the ugly. It is all part of the package and I have NOTHING to be ashamed of.
Posted By: princessmeggy Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 04:11 PM
As a believer, I'm sure thankful that God doesn't hold our past sins against us. In fact, they ARE erased as if they never existed in His eyes. Unfortunately, man isn't so forgiving.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 04:12 PM
But let me add something else. These labels of WS and BS never even come up in conversation between my H and I, because his affair is long forgotten. I never think about it anymore. I know that some do, but I don't. I wanted to clarify that I would never hold my H's past against him, but neither would he deny this sordid part of his past if it ever came up. It just doesn't come up. It is dead and gone..
Posted By: schoolbus Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 04:29 PM
Mel has a good point. She brings up that she doesn't think about the affair anymore, and doesn't hold it over her FORMER WH's head.

Because.......she has FORGIVEN him.

There is power in that word - FORGIVENESS.

If a person is forgiven, that means that the deed is forgiven, not held over that person's head anymore. No, it doesn't mean forgotten. But to hold that label forever over the person's head? I don't think so. Not in my book, anyway.

Josie also brings up a good point. When are we done being a Betrayed Spouse?

Sure, my husband betrayed me about three years ago. I have forgiven him.

What I have trouble with from time to time is recurring feelings and thoughts about it. NOT with his behavior since then, NOT with his commitment to the marriage, NOT with his loving actions.......etc.

Does he suffer under my judgement forever because of one act?

No. He cannot.

I vow from this day forward to refer to him on these boards as my H only. He will not be my FWH. Just my H.

He has earned himself that label again. Point taken. Thank you, to all of those who have moved out of the wayward life, and into the truly married place again.

This from a Formerly Betrayed Wife. I think I "get" what that means now.

Thanks, Josie.

SB
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 04:46 PM
Quote
What a diverse group we have here.
I agree, and I think that we are also diverse in how we define recovery. What one person might consider to be fully recovered another might view as being one of the stages in the recovery process.

The labels themselves might have different definitions to different people. Some might hang onto their "F" because it fills a need or suits a purpose for them. Others might let it go because it no longer fills a need or suits a purpose for them.


Quote
I would ask those folks to consider the possibility that in the best recoveries such labels were lost a long time ago.
That is exactly the reason that I decided that my "F" wouldn't be permanent for me. Working to eliminate resentment is what eliminated my "F" but to another person the result of eliminating resentment might be what gains them their "F"--or their "F" might have nothing to do with resentment at all.

Diversity.

I will continue to read this thread with interest.


Posted By: introvert Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 04:48 PM
I guess it's different for everybody.

I refer to my W as just "W" unless I'm speaking about her A...then she's "WW". She hasn't gotten the "FWW" name yet, because last time I tried to forgive, it was all for not (she was still actively in an A), so basically she hasn't earned the "F" yet.

It seems like it is going to be full circle for my W. If she and I are fortunate enough to move further into recovery without any more setbacks, she will go from "WW" (past), to "W" (present), to "FWW" (maybe in future?), back to "W" (maybe ?).

Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 04:50 PM
Hmmmmm...I think both MEDC and Mr. G agree on more than they might think actually...I could be wrong, let's see...

I'll use us (Mr. W and I) as examples...

I don't actually "wear" a label of FWS...There is no shirt or body scarification...

HOWEVER, I do wear the label HERE because I think it is important for people to understand the perspective of any given poster...Notice, however, that both mine and Mr. W's signatures say "FWW/FBH", and Mr. W is the one who detemined when he was a "Former"...I did not push for that, that was not my place to determine...Really, I suppose it was up to him to determine when he felt I was "Former" as well...There is no doubt for either us now though that we are both "formers"...

I would also gladly wear the "label" anywhere that we might be able to use our story to help someone else in our "real lives", and we have shared for that purpose...As I said earlier in this thread, I believe that it is a powerful testimony to share with others just how far that God has brought me/us...

In our lives together, there is total equality in our marriage...Mr. W doesn't think of me as "less", of this I have no doubt...In fact, I'd say that *I* have been much harder on myself...

As a Christian, I have repented, and there is no question that my "heart condition" has changed 180 degrees from that time...I believe Psalms 103:11-12 that say:

Quote
For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his love for those who fear him;

as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

Clearly, we are human and do remember our past - there is no magic mind eraser...Mr. W and I have never tried to sweep anything under the rug, and today we still talk openly about our entire history when it comes up...We don't do that in any sort of conflict resolution form, as that time has passed...It is a part of "our story" though, just like all of the good things from the past are...All of those experiences have shaped us into who we are today...TODAY is what we feel is most important...Today is what we focus on, enjoy and say prayers of gratitude for...That makes for a very good life for us...

Mrs. W

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 04:55 PM
smile

I was hoping you would chime in.
Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 04:55 PM
Speaking of recovery:
Quote
This canā€™t happen if one spouse will FOREVER perceive their spouse as a ā€œformally wayward spouseā€.
Quote
says who???

SAYS ME!!! Beyond that, it logical and reasonable to believe that carrying such a stigma might impair recovery. It is in fact a fairly obvious observation. How can you possibly believe that it is not harmful for one spouse to FOREVER label the other with a derogatory term? No need to discuss my own firsthand experience that validates my belief. Of course, you would have to first accept my assertion that my wife and I are enjoying a very healthy recovery. There is much to learn from observing what has worked for those recovered marriages; mine might be included in that bunch.

Quote
What is punitive about recognizing the past? How is the FORMERLY wayward spouse harmed?

There is nothing wrong with recognizing the past but there is a great deal wrong with living in the past. To forever brand a spouse with the title ā€œformerly waywardā€ is doing just that. Further, it saddles that person with a ā€œscarlet markā€, all drama intended. To ask, ā€œhow is that person harmedā€ actually makes my blood run cold.

Quote
I think that it is this statement that exposes your underlining philosophy regarding how you will forever view a formally wayward spouse as ā€œalmostā€ equal.
Quote
This is an incorrect assumption on your part. Because you think it...doesn't make it so.

I can only comment and form my opinions based on the things that you have written. It was you who said that they are FOREVER branded with the title ā€œformally wayward spouseā€ and you are arguing vigorously to defend that position. I neednā€™t reach very further to gain a glimpse of your philosophical makeup hence my assertion that while you say some very complimentary things about some ā€œformally wayward spousesā€ you in fact will never view them as having equal footing with you.

Mr. G
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 05:07 PM
Never used the word branded...that was your exageration.

As for the rest...you are entitled to your opinion....I feel no need to convince you otherwise.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 05:09 PM
Mr. G, did you read my post that MEDC seemed to agree with? I wonder if you might also agree???

Mrs. W

P.S. I also agree with ML that the "label" of FORMER is NOT derogatory at all...Former means that you have repented...turned from sin...That is not a negative thing at all...
Posted By: faithful follower Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 05:14 PM
Quote
Why are they kept in that role? When do people get to become what they really are, sans the past waywardness.

I was disheartened/baffled/pissed off that BS's don't get the F in front of their lables, but now I'm getting frustrated that FWS's are forever and ever on these boards known as FWW's.

This bothers me. If in fact that have returned to their true nature of non waywardness, why are they called upon to act as teachers/advisors to the wayward's? It seems to me that that would keep them in a kind of stuck position. Same with the formerly betrayed.

When do we all become just human beings again? former waywards and former betrayed alike?
For me, I can tell you it gets harder and harder to put that "wayward hat" back on and relate to others in that mode. I am so far from that person now and honestly I don't WANT to remember my mode of thinking from back then. I do not consider myself a FWW any longer. I am just a wife. My FWH's betrayal is still pretty fresh for me. We are only about 1.5 years into R from his last A. Some day I guess it won't be so fresh and he will no longer be my FWH, he will just be my husband.

It is honestly easier for me to post as a BS on these boards. I find my tolerance for fog and justifications is almost non existant.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 05:34 PM
Originally Posted by MrsWondering
HOWEVER, I do wear the label HERE because I think it is important for people to understand the prospective of any given poster...

This I agree with. People ask and want to know what perspective we are coming from. This would be the only reason I can think of for it to ever come up. I certainly don't ever dredge up my H's affair anymore. He has redeemed himself 1000%.

I so agree with the rest of your eloquent post. But isn't it surprising that some view being a FWS as a "stigma?" The disagreement here might actually revolve around our own perspective of a FWS.

I view it as an HONOR, some view it as a 'stigma." Interesting.

Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 05:50 PM
Quote
I view it an HONOR, some view it as a 'stigma." Interesting.
In my marriage, I viewed the label "FWH" as neither a stigma nor an honor. I viewed it as "he's not boinking the OW any more."

Other people have different criteria for gaining the "F".

Diversity.


Posted By: losttoday Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 05:57 PM
maybe you should tell him that. I think if you were to spend half the time giving advice and takeing some of your own you may just find a new light in your relationship
Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 06:05 PM
From Mrs. W
Quote
In our lives together, there is total equality in our marriage...Mr. W doesn't think of me as "less", of this I have no doubt...In fact, I'd say that *I* have been much harder on myself...

Do you think that is because you have refused to deny what you have perpetuated in your marriage, the damage that was caused. One day however, you will no longer feel that you need to be ā€œhardā€ on yourself. Mr. W will support you. One day these forums may lose their significance and you will not feel the need to participate any longer. One day you may no longer envision yourself as a woman who long ago cheated on her husband. One day you will simply be a married couple, sharing love and investing in each other. Perhaps that day is at hand.

Mr. G
Posted By: meremortal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 06:05 PM
Former Wayward Spouse is no more a put-down than former alcoholic or former drug addict is IMHO.

I acknowledged Mrs. W is a former wayward wife as a compliment to her, not as some sort of put down.

I think maybe this illustrates a snag that stalls some recoveries. My WXH's last recovery offer was this: He was going to pretend that what happened never happened. That's it. He didn't care whether I might still be hurt or worried, he had no intention of doing the work needed for recovery, he just wanted a 'get home free' pass.

Now I do realize that there are waywards that are willing to put way more effort into recovery than that. My WXH is an extreme case. But it is also true that most waywards don't fully get it that forgiveness and trust are not something they can expect the BS to give quickly. Pressuring the BS to do so, either by veiled threats of giving up on recovery or pretending to be a victim of the BS 'punishing' them just hurts the BS and stalls recovery progress. The WS wanting to dictate when the BS stops worrying (has to start hiding their feelings) is not a former wayward spouse attitude. It's paradoxically an abuse of power that the WS must first lay down before the BS can trust again.

How does a wayward cross the threshhold from wayward to former wayward? Stop expecting, demanding, or whining; start acknowleding, appreciating, and earning. Your BS does NOT have to give you another chance; MANY WS's are never given another chance by their BS. It is a gift. Trust will have to be earned by the WS's efforts, over an extended period of time. Accept that fact without whining.

It takes time and effort, apparently a LOT more time and effort than the wayward spouse thinks it does, to restore what the adultery and lies destroyed. Take an honest look at all that was said and done to create and maintain the adultery. NOT until you have put at least as much time and effort into rebuilding the marriage do you even have a right to begin whining about the BS supposedly withholding forgiveness and trust IMHO.

Again, my WXH is an extreme example, but I have seen oodles of examples of WS's thinking they can just say they're sorry, go to maybe a couple MC sessions, maybe write a no contact letter (if they REALLY HAVE TO), and then they think they've done "all they can"... and their recovery efforts are like a few weeks or months of effort vs months or even years of lying and cheating!
The BS wants, needs, deserves to know they mean more to the WS than the OP did. This is not because the BS is 'mean' or 'vindictive'! How can the BS feel safe and valued if the WS shows signs of resisting or resenting what they need to do for recovery, or won't even put as much time into it as they did the adultery with the OP?

A FORMER WS wouldn't treat a BS that way.

Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 06:22 PM
Originally Posted by Mr. Goodstuff
From Mrs. W
Quote
In our lives together, there is total equality in our marriage...Mr. W doesn't think of me as "less", of this I have no doubt...In fact, I'd say that *I* have been much harder on myself...

Do you think that is because you have refused to deny what you have perpetuated in your marriage, the damage that was caused. One day however, you will no longer feel that you need to be ā€œhardā€ on yourself. Mr. W will support you. One day these forums may lose their significance and you will not feel the need to participate any longer. One day you may no longer envision yourself as a woman who long ago cheated on her husband. One day you will simply be a married couple, sharing love and investing in each other. Perhaps that day is at hand.

Mr. G

I absolutely think that our recovery has worked as it has because of the attitudes of both of us...I say often that recovery is a tandem effort...

I'm not hard on myself anymore Mr. G, that time has passed -- I have been forgiven by God and Mr. W...Mr. W does support me and always has...I envision myself as I am TODAY...Which is a very blessed woman with a wonderful husband and family...

I believe that I will always regret deeply what I did...I don't see how I could not regret it...I do not dwell on it today as that would be unhealthy for our whole family...

Today we ARE a "married couple, sharing love and investing in each other", but that doesn't change that we have an experience under our belts that we can use to help others...Helping others is important to us...We both post here and talk about the situations that we post to together -- posting here is NOT a negative for us -- we have never viewed it as such...Some of the finest times in our history have been when we were volunteering to help others...that works for us...

Mrs. W

P.S. Hey Mel, when ya quote me, could ya at least correct my spelling errors first?!?! D'oh! grin
Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 07:17 PM
Bravo, Mrs. W, Bravo

Mr. G
Posted By: meremortal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 07:30 PM
"Today we ARE a "married couple, sharing love and investing in each other", but that doesn't change that we have an experience under our belts that we can use to help others...Helping others is important to us...We both post here and talk about the situations that we post to together -- posting here is NOT a negative for us -- we have never viewed it as such...Some of the finest times in our history have been when we were volunteering to help others...that works for us...

Mrs. W"

And we are so lucky and grateful to have you experienced folks taking the time to do so! THANX so much!!!

I wish my WXH could become like you Mrs. W - so former that he would have such a passion for fighting adultery.

"P.S. Hey Mel, when ya quote me, could ya at least correct my spelling errors first?!?! D'oh!"

LOL - I bet there hasn't been a single post of mine that I didn't go back and edit for spelling. And a few times when I quoted others I've wondered if it would be wrong, sort of an insult maybe, to fix their spelling mistakes too? (with me it's an OCD thing LOL like when I have to straighten up the brochures in an office or store even though I am a customer instead of employee.)
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 07:47 PM
Quote
Former Wayward Spouse is no more a put-down than former alcoholic or former drug addict is IMHO.
exactly.
if a person can look into their past and see an activity that they are no longer doing, they are a "former" ...
it could be something positive or something negative. it does not give one license to treat a person differently today unless that person appears to be acting the same way.

Posted By: Just Learning Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 09:41 PM
Interesting discussion made more interesting by MEDC's initial post about the FWS always carrying that title.

I say all the more interesting because I agree with what he says but was very very uncomfortable with my agreement and NO it was not because MEDC said it. smile

I thought about it a bit and I think I understand why I was uncomfortable with it. Let me offer you my thinking for your consideration.

People's past is part of who they are and how they have come to be what/who they are today. A bad past can lead to a person that is exempilary (sp) today. A bad past can lead to someone who bears watching to day. So I agree with MEDC.

But, here what was bothering me. Let's say some one is married to a person for 20 years. For 19 years of the marriage this person was a good spouse and even put up with the "failings but not affairs" of the other spouse. But, in that 20th year this spouse had an affair, which is now over and the couple is recovered, (could mean the WS recovered their senses ya know!)

So in carrying the idea of their past being part of who they are, who is this FWS? The loving and good spouse of 19 years or the product of the 20th year? Or a mix? How shall we mix it? 19/20 good, 1/20 bad???

Further, there are people that come here as WS's who are striving to be FWS' that were NOT good partner's in their marriage, but the affair ends, the WS becomes a FWS and even learns how to be a good spouse. HOw does one weight this person's past and use it in the future?

Do you see why while I agree with MEDC we are a product of our past I had some unease about it as well. It is because often the affair is a small part of a FWS' history. It could be a continuation of behavior of an "entitled" person, or it could be a complete abberation of this person's life.

How do we weight this? It seems to me that saying a person must carry "label" of a FWS makes sense on one level, but I guess my problem was how much of a "label" depends on rest of that person's life and how it has been led as well.

People fail and the often fail their spouse in ways other than adultery. Should that be part of the "event set" that all of us carry around? Perhaps it should, but it must be placed in context with their whole life or whole marriage.

I no more believe "once a cheater always a cheater" than I believe "once a good person always a good person". People change, grow, learn, make mistakes,learn from them and grow some more, OR they atrophy as a person.

I think that MEDC's comments are valid. I just don't think they go far enough. I guess that was what was bothering me.

God Bless,

JL
Posted By: introvert Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 09:48 PM
I also believe that FWS's should always carry that title. I learned my lesson in between dday #1 and #2, when I decided to forgive WW too quickly....she will always be under question, and always be a FWW...always.

If some of you never think about the affair your spouses had in the past, then you could possibly erase the "FW". But if I've learned anything form this epxperience, and from Dr. Harley's advice, it's to never have 100% trust in my spouse ever again...therefore if she somehow earns the "F"...she will always have it. Simply, because I will never forget, and this time possibly never even forgive.
Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 10:08 PM
I just don't believe it is productive to apply labels at all. We are 3 years in recovery - maybe that changes your perspective.

I don't think of my wife as anything other than my wife. Sure I remember what she has DONE - but that was such a small part of our history.

My wife will openly share with others who might benefit from her experiences - she's reached out to a few WW's. But that is the only context in which we "remember" what happened.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 10:24 PM
I will always be an FWW. I don't label myself that on the "outside" but it is defintely part of my history. My H and I made a joint decision that my A would not define us or our very long marriage.

I was an exemplary, very happy wife for 28 years. Nothing can take away what we had before my A. Yes, it was tough for my H not to wipe away all the good years but he did it.

We are coming up for 34 years married next month. It is the cause for a great deal of celebration for us.

On the other hand, how do you think I feel when people hear that we've been married that long. They say "wow, in this day and age - that's amazing." I don't go broadcasting to all and sundry that I've had an A, mainly because that's business between my H and I, but I do say to people that we've made it despite everything. If someone asked if my marriage had been affected by infidelity, I would tell them. I also know that when someone comes in with the latest "gossip" about an A they've heard of I make my feelings very clear what I think of (active) adulterers.

ETA We had a prime minister who left his wife for his affair partner. They were married 20 years and when the ex PM died, his "wife" wrote a book about their life together. It was a complete load of fogbabble and tripe and she had the audacity to call the PM's ex wife "bitter" and couldn't understand why his children hated her (duh!).

My coworker was recently at an event where this woman spoke about the ex PM. At the end, everyone stood and applauded but my coworker refused to stand and refused to applaud. She said I'm not letting "that woman" think I approve of her. I said "good for you". I haven't yet told my coworker about my A because we haven't been working together that long. I intend to though because it is something about me that I think she should know.


Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
Quote
Answer, "Of course." Think about why that is.

2long, I don't understand. Are you talking about the Olympic?

Sorry for the corn fusion. That was the answer 2 SH's question, "Can a hypocrite give good advice?".

Quote
On the other point I was trying to make, I think I understand why you needed to understand the thoughts of the wayward, it's because you have always been successful, so you needed to understand the processes of someone who wasn't.

I was of the opposite position. So that may be it.

Very well said. I agree, that's what I was trying 2 say, just couldn't convey it as well!

Quote
But on on the other side of the fence, the one where recovery is the topic. When does a FWW stop being a FWW?

Like I said somewhere, I can't even remember when I stopped using those terms regarding my W. Years ago, now.

Quote
Why are they kept in that role? When do people get to become what they really are, sans the past waywardness.

IMMEDIATELY, in my view. And I think this CAN also help a wayward begin the process of becoming a not wayward.

Quote
When do we all become just human beings again? former waywards and former betrayed alike?

When we allow ourselves that, and those around us, 2. It's a choice. Not making that choice, either for a BS or WS, or even a FBS or FWS is stuckedness.

Quote
I don't know. There could be a good reason, but I just don't see it right now.

I don't even think there is a good reason.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: Just Learning Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 11:24 PM
KiwiJ,

Why should she know? I don't think her being your friend warrents her KNOWING about your marriage to your H. I am not sure your H would be very happy with lots of people knowing you had an A.

IF her marriage was in trouble and you were offering her advice it might be appropriate for her to know where you are coming from (more accurately where you have been). But, really this is something you should POJA with Rob before you go around telling people (friends or not) about your A.

You see on one hand I do think FWS should just become W/H. I also think that if one forgets history then one often gets the chance to relive it. I also think that people learn from their mistakes. But, I don't know that everyone needs to know your history.

Just thoughts.

JL
Posted By: Aphelion Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 11:29 PM
To paraphrase Kiwi, before I put her back on ignore, none of you are my wifeā€™s Hā€¦

I am not going to appeal to my situation being different from any of your experiences. It is different, but appealing to my uniqueness would be a tendril of BS fog. My situation is what it is. And it has changed me forever.

I do not trust anyone who has abused children to be around mine, or anyone elseā€™s children.

Now, I no longer trust anyone who has committed adultery. I do not trust them to be around me or children.

Lack of forgiveness has absolutely nothing to do with it. Perpetrators of adultery and the lies, cheating, abuse and the evil that goes with it owe me nothing. If cancellation of all debt is complete forgiveness, they have it. But, I am not required to let them be in a position to accrue new debits either.

I am not bitter, as far as I can tell. Far from it. I belive my wifeā€™s VLTA has changed me for the better, actually. I now know what I want. I now know what I will put up with and what I will not put up with. I feel as if I have a backbone for the first time since she met her first OM. I now know how to make my own way in life. My own way around adulterers in particular.

Anyone who has ever committed adultery is a trigger. They donā€™t like it? Well, they donā€™t have to be around me any more than I have to be around them.

I will not put up with nor be around anyone who has committed this evil if I do not have to be around them. And I usually do not have to. Before, well, I would have let them have their way around me. I would have acquiesced even if I did not like it. Not ever again. I will not put myself in a position where I have to trust them to not do it around me again.

IRL I control a huge budget for a major research laboratory. I direct its overall operations. I select problems to solve. I hire and I fire. I am very good at what I do. In the past three years three people who I know have cheated on their spouses and another who was an OM have requested a job in this laboratory. I have known them for years. They would be good assets. I thought about each case individually. But they would have been triggers for me. I think I would have had to leave if I hired any of them. So I did not. (I found just as good if not better replacements, too.)

Adulterers, former adulterers and recovered adulterers (itā€™s all just adjectives isnā€™t it) can do whatever they want. They may place themselves in whatever situations they want. They owe me nothing. I do not want anything from them. I simply choose to not be around them, not to interact with them, not to work with them or post to them or vote for them. Even if it is only in case they might do something similar again. I would rather be safe than sorry. Safe from ever feeling that awful again.

The scarlet A is still there on all of them. It really is. I can see it. Faded and covered with makeup. Some other letter tattooed over it. But it is still there. I see it.

Tough? It is. But I no longer care what they want. They got what they wanted a long time ago. They are still getting it even now with their big fat Fā€™s. Just not from me.

More than half my life has been subjected to adultery and its lying, cheating, abusive consequences. It was time I took charge of my life and lifeā€™s triggers and stayed away from anyone who has ever committed that evil. I have earned the right.

I often feel uncomfortable being human, now. I sometimes wish I wasnā€™t of the same genus, nor even in the same phylum as adulterers. I donā€™t like having to live on the same planet with adulterers and former adulterers. But whatā€™s a geek to do?

I have been told this is PTSD related. I have been told I will eventually get over it. I dunno, though. Life is much, much better now than it has been since I can remember. There are plenty of people around me who have never committed adultery and never will. Why would I settle for less when I donā€™t have to?


Oh, and in the case of my M ā€“ I am responsible for what I do and it will be on my timeline, not yours. FWIW, I am not settling. That was what I used to do. I now have a long term plan with accountable goals, finally.
Posted By: Pepperband Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 11:33 PM
Originally Posted by bigkahuna
I just don't believe it is productive to apply labels at all.

Just to throw a curve at you BigK

Every morning my H goes in front of a group of people and says:

"I'm T, and I'm an alcoholic."

Neither he nor I see any shame there. It is what it is. He IS an alcoholic. There is a risk to his NOT admitting that every day.

I am not arguing with the point you made, however, I am offering that, for us, application of a label has been a lifesaver.

And furthermore, should my H one day insist he is not going to self apply that label, I suddenly become very vulnerable once again.

I'm not sure how this applies to other labels - but I am certain how I feel about this particular label.

Pep
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 11:40 PM
JL, normally I wouldn't go around telling people but my coworker has shared a great deal about her marriage with me. I don't think there's been infidelity but she is sometimes very unhappy and confides in me. She is 62 and has been married the same length of time as me. Her H can be very, very difficult - the silent treatment, locking her out of the house, that sort of thing.

I think she thinks I have the "perfect" marriage. I hate being a hypocrite - I want to share with her. Women do that, in case you hadn't noticed. wink I also have some very strange reactions when she talks about adultery (other people's) and I want to come clean with her where I'm coming from.

As for Rob worrying - he has told EVERYBODY. I think he even told the guy who came to clean the windows at the store. He also announced it at dinner with our neighbours. It came out of the blue and it certainly wasn't POJD with me.
Posted By: Pepperband Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/28/08 11:45 PM
Originally Posted by Pepperband
And furthermore, should my H one day insist he is not going to self apply that label, I suddenly become very vulnerable once again.

2 minutes later I had another thought - I know for a fact that my husband thinks of himself as a FWH - and he uses that part of his past to protect our current marriage. He does not trust himself to be in certain situations where he has proven to be vulnerable - the "FWH" is like a safety shield for him.

He does not go around advertising his past to strangers - however if the situation arises, he does share with other men in his group how he almost lost his family to his adultery - he's not living in shame - he is glorious today - but his past has branded him (scarlet A ??? I donno) and that brand has turned out to be protective!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pep

Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 12:19 AM
So labels serve the people applying them.

As you have shown, Pep, that is not always a bad thing, such as in the case of an alcoholic.

It serves Ap to apply the label of wayward, former or otherwise, as he makes no bones about, because of his experience and the way he allowed it for too long.

It serves me to forget past life labels, because that is the only way I feel I can move on from the past.

As have 2long and Mr. Goodstuff said it wouldn't serve them, their wives or marriages to apply the FWW/BS label. Faith as well said she can't even relate to the label or waywards anymore.

Labels serves the people applying them, not necessarily the people they are applied to. But sometimes some people need to apply them to themselves, lest they forget. That's way different than me. Although I will never forget the easy way I used to let whomever, or whatever into my life. Those are fences though, not labels.

It bothers me to see them here as such a big part of this place, but others need them or see them as necessary. So we all are different and perceive things differently.
Posted By: meremortal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 12:28 AM
Hi Aphelion,

I just read your post and I think it does sound like PTSD (which I've gone through a couple of times)

I totally related to the wishing you could go live on another planet thing!

I don't feel like that anymore but I still always want to know whether the people I meet are somehow involved in adultery. I think that's called 'hypervigilance'? It's actually a very normal protective reaction to trauma.

Also, I made friends with some people and then later, after we'd been friends for some time, learned their marriages were the result of adultery, that they broke up their first marriages to be together. I felt betrayed that they didn't reveal that sooner. One such couple we knew really well, they became like family to us. I did tell the wife, who was one of my best friends by then, exactly how I felt about adultery and how much it had hurt me when my WH had cheated on me in the past. We're just acquaintances mostly now, our paths cross on occasion because of some mutual friends and activities. It's been years since we've been to each other's homes...

When my WXH left us for the latest OW she did see how much it hurt my daughters and has since admitted what she did was immature and had hurt her own daughters and his wife. (She also admitted that her adultery partner/husband cheated on her too early in their affair marriage.)

At my age it is doubtful I will get married to a man who wasn't already married in the past (I won't even consider the guys I know that have never been married yet because they're too young for me.) I'm not interested in any man who broke up his first marriage because of adultery and/or a man who's XW wants him back, or their kids want them to get back together. I realize this pretty much means I probably will never marry again LOL. Maybe a widower with a bunch of little kids he needs help raising?

I would however consider reconciliation with my WXH, but ONLY if he met a huge list of requirements first (he won't) and became as anti-adultery as I am (doubtful). And he'd have to maintain that for a long time before I would trust it's for real... So by then we'd be geezers so what would be the point anyway? LOL

Actually, ANY man I meet would have to be VERY anti-adultery to be of interest to me. I don't ever again want to have to try to convince a husband to avoid OW traps. I'm not 100% sure I'd rule out a *F*WS... if his adultery wasn't what ended his marriage, his X wife and kids for sure didn't have any objection to his remarrying, and he was as anti-adultery as Mrs. W is now...
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 12:34 AM
Quote
I do know that if/when I marry again I won't want a husband who was an adulterer. At my age it is doubtful I will get married to a man who wasn't already married in the past. I'm not interested in any man who broke up his first marriage because of adultery and/or a man who'e XW wants him back, or their kids want them to get back together. I realize this pretty much means I probably will never marry again LOL.

Mere,

I married a man who was 48 yo and has never been married before. He did have a daughter out of wedlock when he was in his early twenties (as did I) but his is grown...and no exes who wanted him back (that reminds me of a joke, but I won't tell it here LOL) He is also very spiritual and against lying, cheating or any other behavior that would harm another living thing.

So don't think it isn't possible, that you will ever marry again.

Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 12:34 AM
MM (and others). I am very anti adultery now. Before my A, I didn't even know anyone affected by infidelity and didn't really think much about it. I didn't think it would be something I would ever have to give a lot of thought to. I was definitely against it but, like being against drugs (which I am) it was not something I thought I'd have to stand up and be counted on one day.

Don't you think it smacks of hypocrisy for me to be totally anti adultery now, to the point of making my thoughts very plain to people. In the last two years, I've faced two people I know who were in A's and told them what I thought of their behaviour, to the point where neither of them sought me out to speak to them again.

Where does hypocrisy end and the crusade of the FWS begin?
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 12:38 AM
Originally Posted by KiwiJ
Don't you think it smacks of hypocrisy for me to be totally anti adultery now, to the point of making my thoughts very plain to people and, in the last two years, having to face two people I know who were in A's and telling them what I thought of their behaviour, to the point where neither of them really sought me out to speak to them again.

Where does hypocrisy end and the crusade of the FWS begin?

No, if you are, in fact, anti-adultery, it is not hypocritical at all.

Quote
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
hyĀ·pocĀ·riĀ·sy Audio Help /hɪˈpɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hi-pok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
ā€“noun, plural -sies. 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 12:41 AM
I don't think we need to worry about any MB members being anti-adultry hypocrites. More like anti-adultry vigilantes. We're practically army worthy. grin
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 12:42 AM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
I don't think we need to worry about any MB members being anti-adultry hypocrites. More like anti-adultry vigilantes. We're practically army worthy. grin

**snort** grin
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 12:44 AM
Yes, I am.

Sometimes I have a look at the wayward board. Did you know that FWS's are as unwelcome there as BS's? I think that says something very interesting. I've even been tempted to sign in and start spouting forth on their choices and giving out 2x4s but I know the response I'd get. I've thought maybe as an FWW, I'd be listened to, but I know I wouldn't. I'd be called a troll and told to leave.

That was an aside, nothing to do with the topic really.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 12:45 AM
LOL, Weave, ain't that the truth.
Posted By: meremortal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:02 AM
No I don't think that's hypocrasy.

(My 16 year old thinks that's what hypocrasy means though - that anybody who's ever done anything can't ever change their mind and be against it later - have to work on that with her LOL)

For me it's much more than just being against adultery too.
I've been called a prude a time or two LOL.
The older I think I see the big picture more, how many little 'acceptable' things are committed first leading up to adultery. And even if the adultery itself is resisted, those little things by themselves are like mini betrayals.

I could never again be married to a man who flirts with OW, goes out to lunch with female co-workers, obviously checks out OW in public... I'll never put up with that again. There are guys who don't see much wrong with that, guys who maybe have never committed adultery before and maybe never will. But they're not good enough either IMHO.
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:06 AM
Main Entry: wayĀ·ward
Pronunciation: \ˈwā-wərd\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, short for awayward turned away, from away, adverb + -ward
Date: 14th century
1 : following one's own capricious, wanton, or depraved inclinations : ungovernable <a wayward child>
2 : following no clear principle or law : unpredictable
3 : opposite to what is desired or expected : untoward <wayward fate>

: following no clear principle or law : unpredictable

A wayward is different than an alcoholic in this respect. I know because my dad was an alcohlic, but a very principled man.

An alcoholic must always label himself an alcoholic, because drinking or not he always is.

A wayward is only wayward until the time he stops being wayward.

One is a genetic disease occuring at the cellular level, and the other is a lack of principles.

Even though the alcohlic may have experienced a slackening of his principles during the time he was drinking, he may still have been very principled, the same could not be true of a wayward. Not all alcoholics experience a slackening of their priciples though, even while drinking.

Am I right?

Oh, it just occured to me that a wayward is different than a smoker in this respect, too. I used to liken the addiction of affairs to the addicitons of smoking, but it is so much more.
Posted By: meremortal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:08 AM
"I don't think we need to worry about any MB members being anti-adultry hypocrites. More like anti-adultry vigilantes. We're practically army worthy."

LOL

I'll enlist!

What do our costumes (oops) UNIFORMS look like?

(MY daughters are always catching me saying 'costumes' when it's 'uniforms', as in: "I like the costumes that team is wearing"... "Mom we keep telling you footbal players don't wear costumes"... too much sk8ing and dancing LOL)

Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:08 AM
Well, I just think you people are judgmental and intolerant! laugh
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:15 AM
Quote
There are guys who don't see much wrong with that, guys who maybe have never committed adultery before and maybe never will. But they're not good enough either IMHO.

Mere,

There are a lot of good guys out there. Trust me, there are. Probably only 25% of the single men out there are like your ex.

We need some stats here. Do we have any staticians in the house. Mere needs some good news.
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:18 AM
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Well, I just think you people are judgmental and intolerant! laugh

Yes, you taught us well!


grin

No, just kidding.

Hey, I went to the Alamo when I was in San Antonio, and didn't I think of you. Heck, I half expected to run into you there.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:21 AM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
Yes, you taught us well!

GUILTY!

grin

Quote
Hey, I went to the Alamo when I was in San Antonio, and didn't I think of you. Heck, I half expected to run into you there.

Good Lord, I bet they were snickering at that silly yankee accent! laugh
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:26 AM
Quote
Good Lord, I bet they were snickering at that silly yankee accent!

Oh my gosh. I did read some quote I kept thinking of while there that made me look behind me more than once.

It went something like this -

"And there were these strange creatures called Texans, and there were the Coloreds, and there were the Cajen's, and there were the Cherokees and the Chocta's, and we were all lined up together as one, aiming to shoot us some yankee's"

Forgive my spelling, I don't know how to spell Cagen, or Chocta for that matter.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:32 AM
I believe its Cajun and CHOCTAW. One of my X-husbands was part Choctaw, I recollect.

Soooo, were those Texans neighborly to ya??
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:40 AM
Quote
Soooo, were those Texans neighborly to ya??
_________________________

Oh yes. My SIL is Texan through and through, and she has got to be the sweetest person that ever walked the face of the earth.

Next to you, of course.

grin grin grin

Oh mercury to deltroid, I'm cracking myself up with that one.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:44 AM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
Oh yes. My SIL is Texan through and through, and she has got to be the sweetest person that ever walked the face of the earth.

Next to you, of course.

grin grin grin

Oh mercury to deltroid, I'm cracking myself up with that one.

Yep, I am a hard act to follow, for sure! laugh
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:46 AM
Originally Posted by MelodytheModest
Yep, I am a hard act to follow, for sure!

BWAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! grin grin grin

I have a bad cold...That made me laugh so hard that I think my nose may have unplugged!!! Thanks!!!

Mrs. W
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:55 AM
smile <-----is this not the sweetest face ya ever saw??---> smile
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 02:20 AM
This is how I see you ----------> grin (teef)
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 02:42 AM
how bout these teef??----------------> :eek:

laugh
Posted By: Resilient Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 03:12 AM
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
smile <-----is this not the sweetest face ya ever saw??---> smile

Looks like Kermit the fricken frog to me.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 03:39 AM
Quote
SAYS ME!!! Beyond that, it logical and reasonable to believe that carrying such a stigma might impair recovery.

Mr. G...YOU see it as a stigma...not everyone does. When you say "says me" you are defining for others that they cannot forgive and only live in the past if the consider themselves or their spouse to be a FWS. Obviously based on others posters comments, your take on this cannot be correct...because some have achieved that lofty goal and have found no offense in the label. It is not a punishment to them.

Quote
To ask, ā€œhow is that person harmedā€ actually makes my blood run cold.


Hopefully it does not make your blood run cold for FWS here to not find shame in the label FWS.

A person that committed the act of adultery in their past is a FORMER wayward spouse. I suggest that you are assigning some horrible meaning to that label that really does not exist.

Quote
you in fact will never view them as having equal footing with you.


you say "in fact" as though your opinion is "fact." It isn't. YOU might assign that meaning to someone that you label as a FWS....I do not. There are fws on this board and elsewhere that I am proud to call friend and even look up to in some ways.

Sorry, but you are not correct.


Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 03:40 AM
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
how bout these teef??----------------> :eek:

laugh

Yep, those are more the teef I see. laugh
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 03:40 AM
sorry to take the thread back to serious ladies...I just had a chance to respond to Mr. G.

Carry on.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 03:44 AM
LOL, MEDC, I didn't see you'd posted when I replied about Mel's big growly teef.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 03:51 AM
Mr. G...as an example. Probably over a year ago...maybe more, maybe less...I engaged in a discussion with Mr & Mrs W about her infidelity. I had clearly stated before that I would NOT have been able to stay with her as a result of her actions (actually, I am quite in awe of Mr W). What I said next really defines for me that I don't see things as you have suggested. I told both Mr W and Mrs W that it "would have been my loss" for not staying since she is such a terrific woman. That doesn't sound like the words of a person that refuses to see a FWS on equal footing.

I will admit that not ALL FWS attain that position. It all depends on their actions and how they handle the recovery. TST is a friend of mine and a man that I gave a REAL HARD time too. I don't look down on him even a little...and I view him as a FWH.

Hopefully these two examples clear things up for you.
Posted By: faithful follower Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 04:22 AM
Quote
But sometimes some people need to apply them to themselves, lest they forget. That's way different than me. Although I will never forget the easy way I used to let whomever, or whatever into my life. Those are fences though, not labels.
My "fences"or boundaries are quite high. I know within moments a dangerous situation or what could be dangerous and avoid it. So my experience as both WW and BW have given me the ability to know this.

Pep, I think it is great that your H can use the F to protect his boundaries.
Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 07:21 AM
Pep - I totally get your point.

I wonder if it's different for an addiction than an aberation of character like an affair?
Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 11:34 AM
from JJ (Weaver)
Quote
So labels serve the people applying them.

As you have shown, Pep, that is not always a bad thing, such as in the case of an alcoholic.

It serves Ap to apply the label of wayward, former or otherwise, as he makes no bones about, because of his experience and the way he allowed it for too long.

It serves me to forget past life labels, because that is the only way I feel I can move on from the past.

As have 2long and Mr. Goodstuff said it wouldn't serve them, their wives or marriages to apply the FWW/BS label. Faith as well said she can't even relate to the label or waywards anymore.

Labels serves the people applying them, not necessarily the people they are applied to. But sometimes some people need to apply them to themselves, lest they forget. That's way different than me. Although I will never forget the easy way I used to let whomever, or whatever into my life. Those are fences though, not labels.

It bothers me to see them here as such a big part of this place, but others need them or see them as necessary. So we all are different and perceive things differently.

Masterfully illustrated. I would like to add a thought or two.

Itā€™s kind of funny but you may notice that for the recovered or mostly recovered posters I see an interesting phenomenon. That is, it seems that the betrayed spouses resist using the label ā€œformally wayward spouseā€ to refer to their partner any longer, some even becoming slightly defensive about it, while the formally wayward spouses are more than willing to wear that title.

Why is that?

I think itā€™s a case of one side protecting the other. Each insuring that the other is treated with the utmost care and consideration. Perhaps a deep respect born from the remnants of their long journey together to reach this thing we call ā€œrecoveryā€.

I have more to add regarding ā€œlabelsā€ but I wanted to make sure that I didnā€™t lose this particular observation.

Mr. G
Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:02 PM
Quote
Mr. G...YOU see it as a stigma...not everyone does. When you say "says me" you are defining for others that they cannot forgive and only live in the past if they consider themselves or their spouse to be a FWS. Obviously based on others posters comments, your take on this cannot be correct...because some have achieved that lofty goal and have found no offense in the label. It is not a punishment to them.

Quote
A person that committed the act of adultery in their past is a FORMER wayward spouse. I suggest that you are assigning some horrible meaning to that label that really does not exist.

It exists when someone gives it meaning. You may note from an above post how Aphelion defines formally wayward spouse; there is nothing noble or honorable in her use of that label. I think that you might be doing just that, giving it meaning and then applying to someone to segregate them into their own group even though you may say that is not your intention. You refer to them as criminals or more accurately as former criminals. Now I ask you, where do you see the positive connotations associated with that label? The language that you use makes all the difference. You have now associated the label, ā€œformally wayward spouseā€ with ā€œformer criminalā€. Then you defend it to give it a noble and honorable spin through countless explanations and rationalizations when you could have just abandoned the term altogether when no longer applies to a specific individual.

First, let me clear a misconception that I think you may have in regard to how I view labels. I have no problem with individuals using a label to describe themselves. For instance, I being of Italian decent might refer to myself as a **EDIT**, but would you use those terms to describe me or others of Italian decent? Perhaps you would, but I hope not. Things become much murkier once others use those same labels to describe a group of individuals or even a specific individual as part of a group.

You have stated and others have agreed with you, that you donā€™t see labeling a person with the term ā€œformally wayward spouseā€ for the rest of their days as a discriminatory action. But I think that it is discriminatory as it may no longer describe who and what that person is even though they may themselves may carry that term. It is not for you to assign it as a life sentence. Most will do this without your help. This is what this **edit** believes.

Mr. G

**edit for grammer
Posted By: Mr. Goodstuff Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:20 PM
Quote
When you say "says me" you are defining for others that they cannot forgive and only live in the past if they consider themselves or their spouse to be a FWS.

Close. Let me be a bit clearer. If a betrayed spouse forever tags their partner with the term ā€œformally wayward spouseā€ then the best recovery could very well be an elusive target.

I would be happy to further discuss but all you really need to do is to examine the fully recovered betrayed spouses contribution in this post alone that helps illustrate my point. You will see that they no longer define their formally wayward spouse with that label. One has to wonder why?

Mr. G
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:30 PM
Quote
when you could have just abandoned the term altogether when no longer applies to a specific individual.

since it always does...there is no reason to abandon the term.


Honestly, I think it is you that is "spinning" here. Either a person has this behavior in their past or they do not. If they do...then BY FACT...they are a "former." No amount of spin or feel good speak is going to change that very fact. How the person uses their past and what they do with it, in part, defines who they are today.

You act as though the labels are like the "brand" that you liked to use in your spin. It isn't. The brand is there for all to see....the term FWS is selective.

As for the criminal thing...I liken the behavior of waywards to criminals (in fact I believe infidelity should be a crime). The act creates a record of what that person has done....as it should. What that person does with this record is up to them. And it isn't as though a person is walking around with that flashing on their forehead. It is part of their record...and what they do with it is up to them. According to your logic, an ex-con...that is no longer acting like a con should leave that label behind forever. Sorry...it doesn't and shouldn't work that way.

As for your childish inclusion of derogatory names...I will let the mods speak to that.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:40 PM
Quote
You will see that they no longer define their formally wayward spouse with that label.

Now you have added the word DEFINE. Why? Mrs. W is NOT defined solely by her waywardness in the past. But that does not change the fact that she is a FWS...and a wife...a mother...friend...daughter...sister, etc. I would give a lot more weight to her OTHER labels...but one does not erase the others.

You have taken this to ridiculous places IMO. No one here has stated that their partner is defined by their past. No one has suggested pointing fingers and discriminating against a person for their past. I am about as strong an opponent to abortion as you will ever meet. But, I have no problem dating a person that had an abortion in their youth so long as they have learned from their mistake and now have a pro life stance. That does not change the fact that they had an abortion...but I don't go around pointing a finger or judging. It is merely a statement of fact.
Posted By: mimi_here Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 01:43 PM
For me, my WAYWARD HUSBAND and MY CURRENT HUSBAND are two completely different people. It would be difficult for me to continue to evidence and feel LOVE for HIM if I in any way EXPERIENCED him DAILY as being the WAYWARD HUSBAND. Giving HIM that LABEL would be a LOVEBUSTER..like how going into PLAN B saves the LOVE you have for your SPOUSE..

I LOVE him even more NOW because he has continued to WORK so hard on being COMPLETELY different from the WAYWARD. Early on, it was difficult to BELIEVE that the WAYWARD had DIED but I believe NOW that HE HAS...for months and years, I would keep checking him out to see if any traces of HIM remained...

This is about PERSONAL CHANGE. Can a person CHANGE?

I believe that it's been well-documented in the psychological literature that lasting and permanent PERSONALITY CHANGE most often results from MAJOR TRAUMAS. For some/many, my H being one, his AFFAIR, was a MAJOR LIFE TRAUMA for HIM as well as ME. His PSYCHOLOGICAL WOUNDING was MAJOR. As I have said previously, he is no longer the self-confident, dynamic person he used to be...It's pitiful to see him attempt public-speaking. He comes across as being ashamed. I know why...others don't..OH WELL..his story..his cross to bear...

So, it's not JUST the ADDICTION..as with an alcoholic.
Yes, I think he will be FOREVER ADDICTED to HER or what she PRODUCED...his PERSONALITY FLAW, weakness for THAT...

It's the resulting DEVASTATION in all respects that can be TRAUMATIC for the wayward..PERSONAL, FINANCIAL, SOCIAL...OUR WHOLE WORLD CRUMBLED...

Once the decision is made to RECOVER..it becomes OUR WOUND..we began work on HEALING as A TEAM...in life together til death do us part..as MARRIAGE is supposed to be...
Posted By: _Larry_ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 06:08 PM
MEDC:

Quote
You have taken this to ridiculous places IMO. No one here has stated that their partner is defined by their past. No one has suggested pointing fingers and discriminating against a person for their past. I am about as strong an opponent to abortion as you will ever meet. But, I have no problem dating a person that had an abortion in their youth so long as they have learned from their mistake and now have a pro life stance. That does not change the fact that they had an abortion...but I don't go around pointing a finger or judging. It is merely a statement of fact.

Good comment. Fact is all of are born with "Entitlement" and self interest as our mantra and all of us grown up or not as the case may be. We are taught by peers, parents, schools and the hard lessons from the consequences of mistakes and we carry the genetic predisposition of our parents.

Fact is, we are all who we are based on our past and our present. We can hate how we got where we are but appreciate who we are if who we are is worth appreciating. I haven't cheated on my wife, but that by no means entitles me to the moral high ground in dealing with her or anyone else for that matter. I have enough past mistakes that I totally regret for me to think I am more moral than the next person as a PAST and to the best of my ability, my present.

Larry
Posted By: introvert Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by _Larry_
MEDC:

Quote
You have taken this to ridiculous places IMO. No one here has stated that their partner is defined by their past. No one has suggested pointing fingers and discriminating against a person for their past. I am about as strong an opponent to abortion as you will ever meet. But, I have no problem dating a person that had an abortion in their youth so long as they have learned from their mistake and now have a pro life stance. That does not change the fact that they had an abortion...but I don't go around pointing a finger or judging. It is merely a statement of fact.

Good comment. Fact is all of are born with "Entitlement" and self interest as our mantra and all of us grown up or not as the case may be. We are taught by peers, parents, schools and the hard lessons from the consequences of mistakes and we carry the genetic predisposition of our parents.

Fact is, we are all who we are based on our past and our present. We can hate how we got where we are but appreciate who we are if who we are is worth appreciating. I haven't cheated on my wife, but that by no means entitles me to the moral high ground in dealing with her or anyone else for that matter. I have enough past mistakes that I totally regret for me to think I am more moral than the next person as a PAST and to the best of my ability, my present.

Larry

Good post, Larry.

One BIG question, though.... When does the "past" turn to "present"? That's the one that stumps me.
Posted By: Resilient Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 06:31 PM
For single folks (divorced due to betrayal, or not) who are in the dating scene, I think its a must to know if potential suitors were ever a WS or had cheated.

And if they had, what did they learn. And if their answer isn't in alignment with what I've learned about remorse, repentence and lessons from being on this site for 8 years, they're outta here.

So yes, i think its important for folks to recognize a life's lesson about themselves and share it when needed.

Jo
Posted By: Bob_Pure Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 10:48 PM
I believe the dynamics of adultery and recovery make this a complicated issue.

Recovery is an unusual situation IMO because the primary victim chooses to live in the deepest level of intimacy and vulnerability with the person who devastated them.

I have said before that if another external person had threatened my family and delivered me an insult equivalent to Squid with her affair I would not rest until I had killed them.

Yet I eat, sleep, and intimate with Squid. I do not do that with any other person who has offended against me.

I do not think that descriptive factual compound nouns are "labels". I am an ex rugby player, and former employee of BT for example. They are not labels so much as compound nouns used in context.

However the relevance of those nouns is close to nil in most life situations. My status as a BS and Squids as a FWS are relevant a thousand times every day however.

That is because our recovery is not complete.

I do believe that some folks in complete recoveries genuinely never consider their adultery experience because the value added to each others lives on a daily basis is so pervasive and positive, FWS or BS becomes as redundant as "warley Wasps rugby club alumnus".

That is not my experience, nor is it the experience of the majority of recoverers I have read and known.

So in summary its is silly to deny the fact of the names FWS and BS. What varies is their relevance to everyday life.

Both are still unfortunately central to my own life.
Posted By: Aphelion Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 10:54 PM
Denial of adjectives (or compound nouns, as BP calls them) is often taken to ridiculous extreme, you know.

The first MC FWW and I saw after the first affair did not want me to use the word adultery, or adulterer.

She said it was labeling.

Sounds like you guys agree with her.


A spade is a spade. Donā€™t like calling it a spade? Stay out of the adultery game (a label) in the first place.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 10:57 PM
Originally Posted by Aphelion
The first MC FWW and I saw after the first affair did not want me to use the word adultery, or adulterer.

She said it was labeling.

What in the world did she want you to call it??
Posted By: Aphelion Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 11:00 PM
I remember reading years ago about an Amazon tribe that would duck and cover when someone yelled a curse or a name. They thought labels and names had magical powers and could be avoided by physical contortions.

Arenā€™t you guys supposed to be more cosmopolitan than that by now?
Posted By: Aphelion Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 11:03 PM
Originally Posted by keepitreal
What in the world did she want you to call it??
The most direct word she would use was "infidelity".

But usually she just called rutting in a seedy No Tell Motel an "unfortunate choice".


ed: oops, have I offended cheap motels now?
Posted By: Resilient Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 11:04 PM
Originally Posted by keepitreal
What in the world did she want you to call it??


hooo, hooo! I know this one. <raises hand>

An active WW was here a couple years back and she called it an ENCOUNTER. Albeit the adultery lasted a couple of years, but an encounter nonetheless.

laugh
Posted By: mimi_here Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 11:23 PM
Quote
I do believe that some folks in complete recoveries genuinely never consider their adultery experience because the value added to each others lives on a daily basis is so pervasive and positive, FWS or BS becomes as redundant as "warley Wasps rugby club alumnus".

That is not my experience, nor is it the experience of the majority of recoverers I have read and known.

I feel WE fit in PARAGRAPH ONE. I believe it's true for the MAJORITY of RECOVERERS. I know just as well as you do, Bob. I'd rather see the glass HALF FULL. I haven't read where anyone here is quoting a research study.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 11:25 PM
Wow, those euphemisms sound so sound so tame. An "unfortunate choice" could be choosing the wrong color for a pedicure, and an "encounter" might be bumping into a neighbor in the cereal aisle at the grocery store.

Softening the words for adultery just happens to be a pet peeve of mine. I don't even like the word "affair" which has somewhat of a romantic connotation. When I confront a wayward, or even type the abbreviation AP, in my mind it is not "affair partner" but "adultery partner".

People cringe at the word, but that's what it is.

For goodness sakes, it's not pretty; it's ugly. KEEP IT REAL!
Posted By: committedandlovi Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 11:28 PM
Quote
What in the world did she want you to call it??

<cue JEOPARDY! music>

What is an.... INDISCRETION?


That way...is sounds high class and high falootin. whistle

committed
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 11:30 PM
Originally Posted by Resilient
Originally Posted by keepitreal
What in the world did she want you to call it??


hooo, hooo! I know this one. <raises hand>

An active WW was here a couple years back and she called it an ENCOUNTER. Albeit the adultery lasted a couple of years, but an encounter nonetheless.

laugh

Oooo! Oooo! I remember that one! (*rolly eyes guy*) That is the same thread where you did the "damn hole" bit Jo! That still makes me double over in laughter today...Dang, I wish the search function worked!

Mrs. W
Posted By: Aphelion Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 11:31 PM
Originally Posted by Resilient
An active WW was here a couple years back and she called it an ENCOUNTER. Albeit the adultery lasted a couple of years, but an encounter nonetheless.
That would be a series of unfortunate choices.

Also commonly known as an adulterous lifestyle (another label).
Posted By: Pepperband Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 11:38 PM
Originally Posted by Aphelion
Originally Posted by Resilient
An active WW was here a couple years back and she called it an ENCOUNTER. Albeit the adultery lasted a couple of years, but an encounter nonetheless.
That would be a series of unfortunate choices.

Also commonly known as an adulterous lifestyle (another label).

in AA terms

"a slip"

as in "oops" grin
Posted By: Resilient Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/29/08 11:47 PM
Quote
When an eel lunges out
And it bites off your snout
Thats a moray ~DS

LOL! Hilarious ...
Posted By: faithful follower Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/30/08 02:59 AM
Quote
Softening the words for adultery just happens to be a pet peeve of mine. I don't even like the word "affair" which has somewhat of a romantic connation. When I confront a wayward, or even type the abbreviation AP, in my mind it is not "affair partner" but "adultery partner".
Personally, I like Mel's description of rutting like pigs. laugh

Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/30/08 03:21 AM
Originally Posted by faithful follower
Quote
Softening the words for adultery just happens to be a pet peeve of mine. I don't even like the word "affair" which has somewhat of a romantic connotation. When I confront a wayward, or even type the abbreviation AP, in my mind it is not "affair partner" but "adultery partner".
Personally, I like Mel's description of rutting like pigs. laugh

Yes, that paints a picture for sure!
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/30/08 04:39 AM
I prefer 2 call a shovel a shovel as well.

Hence, affair, infidelity, Rat Meat (I am 99% certain that's his true composition)...

But of all the "labels", it's calling the affair an affair that's the most effective, if anything is, in keeping my perspective on the past or even helping my W avoid having another one in the fu2re.

But the FWW stuff? "Hi Mr and Mrs John Q Public, this is Mrs 2long, my Eff Dubya Dubya."

Sounds ridiculous, like if I were 2 proudly proclaim at a BBQ with my friends from grad school "Hey guys, I'm BS!" which would no doubt evoke a response along the lines of "We've known THAT for a long time now!"

Labels, schmabels.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: _Larry_ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/30/08 05:41 AM
Originally Posted by faithful follower
Quote
Softening the words for adultery just happens to be a pet peeve of mine. I don't even like the word "affair" which has somewhat of a romantic connation. When I confront a wayward, or even type the abbreviation AP, in my mind it is not "affair partner" but "adultery partner".
Personally, I like Mel's description of rutting like pigs. laugh

As one of the symptoms of Swine Flu.

Larry
Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/30/08 06:19 AM
Originally Posted by Mr. Goodstuff
Itā€™s kind of funny but you may notice that for the recovered or mostly recovered posters I see an interesting phenomenon. That is, it seems that the betrayed spouses resist using the label ā€œformally wayward spouseā€ to refer to their partner any longer, some even becoming slightly defensive about it, while the formally wayward spouses are more than willing to wear that title.

Interesting observation and one I had been thinking about before I saw your post. My wife would be quite happy to refer to herself as a FWW - it is ME the BS who doesn't apply labels.

I have no idea why that is.
Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/30/08 06:28 AM
I certainly don't shy back from calling adultery, adultery and saying it's a sin - so I really don't take your point Aphelion.

Applying a label to a PERSON is different to applying a label to an ACTION(S)
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 07/30/08 02:44 PM
Originally Posted by Pepperband
in AA terms

"a slip"

as in "oops" grin

Saying a "slip" in AA is 2x4 bait. One only says this if you want splinters stuck in ya head. crazy The response is "it wasn't a slip, it was a premeditated DRUNK!"
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 12:41 AM
Originally Posted by bigkahuna
I certainly don't shy back from calling adultery, adultery and saying it's a sin - so I really don't take your point Aphelion.

Applying a label to a PERSON is different to applying a label to an ACTION(S)

Sorry to raise the dead, but I think I understand now why it bothers me so much.

Because before the act of adultry, most of the WS's were very good spouse's. And as Mimi said, very different from the WS. Orchid used to say this all the time, too. They were not the same people as they were all their lives, when they were in an affair. Mr. Goodstuff actually argued with me about his wife being spoiled and never having to struggle, as she was not at all that way, he said.

The adultry had gotten hold of them and changed them, temporarily. That is how most BS's get through the adultry and are able to reconcile. They know this is not who their spouse really is.

All through Plan A, and Plan B when it is applied, it's the philosphy that this is not my spouse, this is an alien.

So if that is in fact true, they are just back to being who they truely are, after they end the affair and they recommit.

The affair was a tempory sojourn into unreality.

So how can that be who they were? It was always about who they were not.

So they would not be FWS's, they would be returned to their true nature.

Now, I don't care for waywards, they bring out the absolute worst in me, but I know that in most cases, especially the cases where recovery has happened, that that is not who they really are. So they could not be a former of who they never were.

Do you see the hyposcrisy in this? Bob Pure, I specifically want to know if you do. Because you are the one I see as having the most difficulty in reconciling that the wayward wife was not your wife. It was an aboration of who she is.

I don't know, I should probably not bring this thread up again, but I really think it impedes recovery.

And BigK, I have no idea why it bothers you, but not your wife to be referred to as a FWW. It doesn't make sense to me. I wouldn'y want to be referred to by my husband as a former hussy, if in fact I had been for one moment in time, a hussy. Actually in high school I did a lot of drugs. But I was 14 yo and haven't touched a drug since I was 17, I barely ever, ever will even take prescriptions drugs, so referring to me as a former drug addict seems absurd to me. Even though I was a drug addict, and kicked out of my dad's house for it. It reminds me of a time in my life that I hurt my parents, and myself, terribly. It is indeed better left in the past, as I have huge regrets over it. Regretting over the past is a sin. It is an impediment to all that you could be in the future. It darkens the present with regretful thoughts. I don't know why some FWW's don't feel the same. I don't know.

Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 12:56 AM
oh never mind. It doesn't matter. Not trying to start an argument or stir up contriversy, just thinking out loud, on the typewriter.
Posted By: _Larry_ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 12:57 AM

Hiya weaver. . .

Here is my POV, for what it is worth (not much).

We are all the product of our choices in life, our genetics and our raising, along with the influences of our peers, bosses, and society in general. We are who we are. How we got to where we are sometimes means that we caved in to our weaknesses at some point in time, which is a part of who we are even if we don't like to admit it to the world or to ourselves.

And it is sometimes useful to remind ourselves what we have done in the past so we can protect our weaknesses from seeing the light of day and biting us on the [censored], again. This is sorta like the drug addict telling everyone they are an addict and that they have been xxx days or months or years clean.

Others see ourselves as who we are now, not the mistakes we have made to become who we are. Well, sometimes. There are some people out there who would remind us of our past as a way of controlling us or making themselves feel better about who they are compared to us, while ignoring their own glass house.

I "Know" that my wife, who I refer to as "Wife," thinks of herself as a former wayward. She does this to protect herself and to emphasize to herself how far she has come along the road of life to adulthood.

Larry

Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 01:04 AM
Yeah, I know Larry. But there will come a time when reminding herself of the past will be a deterent to all that she really is.

Once true repentence has taken place, you could never, ever repeat the past regressions, no matter how negligent you were. And I believe that true repentence forever changes and deletes the past mistakes. That is one of the great lessons taught in the Bible. And I believe for a very good reason.

I hate seeing it in sig lines. BS, FWS. An abomination to all that they really are now, once were or will strive to become.

Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 01:39 AM
Weave, the only reason I use FWW here is for clarity. I think that's what everyone uses those labels for.

Y'know even though my adultery is well in the past and my H and I are recovered, it's something that has happened which will always define me. Not as a wayward wife, but as someone who has experienced infidelity and recovery. I use the drug analogy again. If I had been a heroin addict or a crack addict that is something that I couldn't deny.

I've said before, I was an exemplory wife before my adultery. People thought I was a goodie goodie. But, that changed. It doesn't define me in my everyday life, it doesn't define me as a person but it is something that happened and can never be taken back. It changed me and it changed my H and it changed my kids. I can't deny it happened but I don't have to make a huge point of it every day either.

Mel described it very well. Her H doesn't introduce her "this is my wife, the drunk", but it is part of her past.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 01:52 AM
Quote
Because before the act of adultry, most of the WS's were very good spouse's

IF they were a really good spouse adultery would have never had a chance to take place.
Posted By: shinethrough Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 01:53 AM
I had a wonderful car, once, that I bought brand new off the showroom. First time im my life I ever did that but I couldn't resist.

It was a beauty in my mind and gave me lots of happiness just driving it. I made the mistake of letting my son, who had just gotton his license drive it one night. As an impulsive young teenager, he managed to wrap it aroung a tree. Thank God, he was unhurt, but my shiney new car was a wreck.

After fighting a bit with the insurance co. I had the car completely restored and repaired.

For many years after that, I continued to enjoy the great car I had. Kept it shiney and clean and it ran like a top.

When it finally came time to sell the car, I had many enthusiastic buyers looking to give me a fair price for the car.

Before any deal could be made the one and same question always came to the surface: "Has the car ever been in a major accident?"

Being truthful, I always answered, "yes, it has." At that point, it didn't matter that the car looked and ran beatifully, the Q had been asked and answered. "yes it has."

I ended up taking far less for the car than it was worth, and I felt I was betraying the car itself, for it looked and ran so well, it would have done so for any prospective buyer. But it couldn't get past the Q, "has it ever had a major accident?"

I had the faith to give my car a second chance after the "accident." It served me very well and was quite reliable.

Thus it is, that our God is a God of second chances(or third or fouth...). Labels are only important to us folks on earth. Being rightous and correct in our daily lives, is who we are now, and the past cannot corrupt a person who is repentant, and lives for who they have become today, regardless of the mistakes that got us here.

It's just the way it is.

All Blessings,
Jerry
Posted By: believer Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 01:53 AM
Or as the Bible says -

If a wicked man restores a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery,... he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of his sins that he has committed will be remembered against him. Ezekiel 33:15-16

I believe in redemption. I think lots of folks here do. Otherwise they wouldn't be wanting to save their marriages.

I've been a quiet and gentle woman for most of my life, a Proverbs23 woman. But there have been some lapses, and I did things that I regret to this day.

That is why I trust in Jesus' words - "Go and sin no more".
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 01:58 AM
Quote
I believe that true repentence forever changes and deletes the past mistakes.

Thank God our courts and prison systems do not see things this way. And it is not always NEGLIGENCE that causes past transgressions..often times it is well thought out, premeditated acts.

So, I am curious...I think if I am reading you correctly, that you would be aainst a criminal having a "record" after serving their sentence??? Is that right? Or is it only the sin of adultery that you think should be wiped clean?

And IF you feel that a record should be wiped clean, does you think that shows very little concern for potential future victims of a criminal?

See, DELETING past mistakes is all well and good for GOD...HE can see a persons heart. People, on the other hand, are left to look at a persons actions, past and present, in order to know them.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:18 AM
Shinethrough's analogy was spot on.

But Medc, can't you see that for 48 years I lived my life in a way that was completely blameless. I WAS a good person until the acts that now define me forever as an FWW.

I AM a good person now.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:23 AM
I agree you are a good person now.

I do not believe that GOOD people put themselves in positions where an affair would take place. There is a moral disconnect that must be present in order for the act to happen even the very first time.
Posted By: believer Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:25 AM
"I believe that true repentence forever changes and deletes the past mistakes."

Obviously you are not understanding this MEDC. True repentance does change the past mistakes. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences.

There are many people in prison who BELONG there. I'm sure most are "sorry". But we're talking about true repentance. And for those that are truly repentant, and willing to change their lives, I hope they do get out of jail after they have done their time.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:27 AM
There's the rub. I didn't put myself in the position to have an A. I wasn't looking for an A. I didn't wake up one morning and say I think I'll have an A. I thought I was immune.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:28 AM
Quote
I hope they do get out of jail after they have done their time.

me too. What does getting out of jail have to do with having a record?

Quote
Obviously you are not understanding this MEDC.

Oh, I get it just fine B. I am not the idiot that you so cowardly called me.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:29 AM
Quote
I didn't put myself in the position to have an A.

Yes, you did. Absent putting yourself in the position, it could not have happened.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:30 AM
Quote
I didn't wake up one morning and say I think I'll have an A.

NEVER said you did. BUT, you did NOT say "NO" when things became inappropriate. YOU took it further.
Posted By: believer Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:35 AM
Whatever, MEDC. I know the thread you are talking about - [censored]. I wrote the idiot thing warning him about some people that would post to him. And it wasn't you.

I'm not going to go and look back to find it, but it was someone else.

Don't make me put you on ignore again. I mostly like your advice.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:37 AM
Quote
Don't make me put you on ignore again.

Please do.
Posted By: _Larry_ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:40 AM
Originally Posted by medc
I agree you are a good person now.

I do not believe that GOOD people put themselves in positions where an affair would take place. There is a moral disconnect that must be present in order for the act to happen even the very first time.

I don't agree with you. The slippery road to adultery can infect someone who, if they were in their right mind, would not take that road, and who, when recovered from their stupid, ARE bitterly ashamed of what damage they had done to all concerned.

If I thought that someone who would have an affair was permanently marked as morally corrupt, then I would be pointing a finger at not only my wife, but to a significant portion of the human race.

Harley has a few words on the same subject.

Larry
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:42 AM
I don't think people that have affairs are permanently marked as corrupt.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:44 AM
Yes, I did. I don't deny that for a moment.

The guilt was overwhelming though. I was drunk most of the time, I had numbing panic attacks, I was a mess. Not enough to stop me obviously, but the mindset I had at the time was that it was "meant to be" so it couldn't be "wrong". I knew very well that what I was doing was wrong but I'd never had to question my morals. I'm deeply ashamed that I could be immoral.

I understand exactly what you're saying, you know. My H's morals are unswerving. He would never have an A. Part of all this is knowing what my morals are and learning that my morals are what make me.

ETA I posted this before I read the other replies.

I don't think I'm a corrupt person but I was and I can't forget that and I SHOULD never forget that. I've said I don't live this every day and I don't but it's something that DOES define me. It's something I was capable of doing and I need to know and accept that about myself.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:48 AM
I think you should proud of who you are today Kiwi.
Posted By: KiwiJ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:49 AM
LOL, just fell off my chair.

Thank you.
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:51 AM
Quote
oh never mind. It doesn't matter. Not trying to start an argument or stir up contriversy, just thinking out loud, on the typewriter.
I think it does matter and I'm glad that you're using this thread to think out loud. smile

Several board members have stated what their labels mean to them, what needs their labels satisfy, and/or what purpose their labels serve for them but it won't necessarily mean the same to you....nor does it have to.

For me, the term FWH simply meant that WH wasn't boinking the OW any more. And it was a temporary term, a beginning. Either there would be marital recovery and he would become H again or there wouldn't be recovery and "FW" would be exchanged for "ex." The term FBW was important to me for quite a while too because in the midst of lingering pain of the betrayal it was good to be reminded that it was no longer occurring.

I hope you continue to think out loud on this thread, Josie. Threads similar to this one made me think too and helped me define the labels in the way that would be most helpful to my recovery process...and, more importantly, beyond.


Posted By: _Larry_ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:53 AM

Jen:

Some of us learn early and some learn late, but all learn as a process of growing up to be a grownup who understands consequences. And then, some never learn. Now that one is evidence you can't fix stupid; the learning is evidence you can fix ignorance, most of the time. Some folks have a harder time learning than others. wink

Larry

Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 03:05 AM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
And BigK, I have no idea why it bothers you, but not your wife to be referred to as a FWW. It doesn't make sense to me.

Josie - the way you put it doesn't make sense to me either LOL.

It doesn't bother me.

It's just a label I don't apply - I don't see my wife that way. But it doesn't offend me at all.
Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 03:07 AM
Originally Posted by medc
Quote
Because before the act of adultry, most of the WS's were very good spouse's

IF they were a really good spouse adultery would have never had a chance to take place.

I utterly disagree with this.

Utterly.

My wife was a wonderful wife for 23 years before her affair and she is a wonderful wife again now.

Her affair does not define her for those 23 years and it does not define her now.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 12:23 PM
BK...how does a "wonderful wife" take her clothes off for the FIRST TIME with another man? How does she even put herself in that position? For that matter, how does she engage in a sexual discussion with another man for the first time? How does the first kiss happen if she is a wonderful wife? (I think maybe its time to raise the bar for "wonderful wife." IMHO, a wonderful wife says "no" and tells her husband what happened. A wonderful wife doesn't need to be perfect...but she should be able to handle these most basic of tasks).

I just don't buy that good people do those things. I also don't believe that good people commit spousal assault, rob, molest, rape...etc. But based on all the people that come out of the woodwork to be a character witness for these criminals, I imagine a lot of people get fooled pretty easily.
Posted By: Bob_Pure Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 01:36 PM
Quote
Do you see the hyposcrisy in this? Bob Pure, I specifically want to know if you do. Because you are the one I see as having the most difficulty in reconciling that the wayward wife was not your wife. It was an aboration of who she is.

Hi Josieaver !

Just recently I have received a salient education in how affairs happen.

There is a friend of our family who is a senior teacher at DS' school, with whom I worked as a school governor and is a good friend of Squid.

She became a BS last year and Squid and I offered help as we could. Her H was (still is) beyond help so they divorced. She is coping pretty well. She is smart, beautiful, funny , vulnerable and thinks I am great. There is the electricity of liking to spend time together. I have no doubt that we would have an affair if we just met unchaperoned a few times because we wanted more of that nice sensation with NO intention of an affair, of course...

That is how affairs happen. That is what Dr H means when he says affairs happens because people do not protect their weaknesses. When people feel that electric mutual attraction they draw near to experience more of it rather than stepping right away. It feels really nice for somebody to think you're great and if home life isn't going through a brilliantly entertaining patch it can't compete and you're vulnerable to an affair.

If I chose to dance close to that fire it would be ME and my EXISTING attributes that would take me there.

Then if I rebelled against that relationship ending I would again be using existing attributes: I can be selfish, I can lie, I just don't choose to most of the time.

Squid got closer and closer to the fire and enjoyed the warmth from it. She raged and fought to stay in its warmth using capabilities she had always had within her.

She behaved like a manga cartoon version of herself: attributes that rarely surfaced became her defining attributes for a while: under certain circumstances.

But it was her chosen instinctive response to circumstances not temporary schizophrenia. I have no doubt that under similar circumstances she would behave that way once more.

So no I don't buy that when folks have affairs they become other people for a while. I think that is a coping mechanism that we can use in order to reconcile successfully with the person who knowingly hurt us so very much.

Squid doesn't behave in a wayward manner often now, but there are flashes of the potential occasionally. Often enough for me to remain on alert. She is a complicated person. It would be so much easier if I didn't love her so much smile

Interestingly I discussed the situation over this teacher friend with Squid and she was dismissive. Despite her personal history she still thinks I am being dramatic by taking anti-A actions.

Posted By: _Larry_ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 01:53 PM
Originally Posted by medc
BK...how does a "wonderful wife" take her clothes off for the FIRST TIME with another man? How does she even put herself in that position? For that matter, how does she engage in a sexual discussion with another man for the first time? How does the first kiss happen if she is a wonderful wife? (I think maybe its time to raise the bar for "wonderful wife." IMHO, a wonderful wife says "no" and tells her husband what happened. A wonderful wife doesn't need to be perfect...but she should be able to handle these most basic of tasks).

I just don't buy that good people do those things. I also don't believe that good people commit spousal assault, rob, molest, rape...etc. But based on all the people that come out of the woodwork to be a character witness for these criminals, I imagine a lot of people get fooled pretty easily.


Black and white. Good or bad. Your cop culture shows and that is not a bad thing, it is what it is. People are complex. And people compartmentalize who they are. A good person is not born that way, they are made, nurture versus nature. And often the making is hard experience and ignorance becoming an often hard won education. It is often said that those who think they never would stray are exactly the ones who do, all the while thinking about their immunity.

Almost everyone has a bad side. To reject the bad side is to expose one's weaknesses, which Harley says lurks in all of us. And some give in to it or walk down the slippery slope as the case may be. I don't think an affair defines a person before or after, but how they deal with it does.

Just my POV.

Larry
Posted By: _Larry_ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 01:56 PM

Interesting study by, er Swedish social scientists, that revealed that many, if not most women, flirt to keep their man close by their side. And the flirt is not credible unless the potential exists for the real thing.

Quote
Squid doesn't behave in a wayward manner often now, but there are flashes of the potential occasionally. Often enough for me to remain on alert. She is a complicated person. It would be so much easier if I didn't love her so much

Interestingly I discussed the situation over this teacher friend with Squid and she was dismissive. Despite her personal history she still thinks I am being dramatic by taking anti-A actions.


So I have gathered that flirting and the potential is part of nature's cosmic joke.

Larry
Posted By: Bob_Pure Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 02:02 PM
Cosmic joke indeed : it has the very opposite effect on me nowadays smile
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 03:21 PM
I don't understand human nature 100% but my take on this comes from Scripture. We are not born "good" but with a bent toward sin. Even a young child if left to develop his personality naturally, has a strong bent toward selfishness.

We are all (as fallen man) wired to sin. and therefore it is natural for us to be bad in whatever areas our weaknesses happen to be in.

I think that is why it is so very important for every single one of us to have strong boundaries in place, even if we consider ourselves "good" people. Goodness is of God, and when we let down those boundaries, or decide we are strong enough on our own, our true natures will come slithering out in one form or the other.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 03:37 PM
Quote
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. Matthew 15:19


Jesus certainly knew the nature of man.

Mrs. W

Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 03:39 PM
Originally Posted by MrsWondering
Quote
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. Matthew 15:19


Jesus certainly knew the nature of man.

Mrs. W

Good point!
Posted By: Pepperband Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 03:41 PM
Originally Posted by medc
BK...how does a "wonderful wife" take her clothes off for the FIRST TIME with another man? How does she even put herself in that position? For that matter, how does she engage in a sexual discussion with another man for the first time? How does the first kiss happen if she is a wonderful wife?

I think there is usually alcohol-involved flirting as ignition, very dangerous.

Pep
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 03:54 PM
FTR, Mrs. K (BK's wife) didn't take her clothes off for OM...

BK was still betrayed...no question...

I just can't stand idly by while that is said about my good friend, as they no doubt are peacefully sleeping...probably dreaming of the Kangaroo Bacon they will be having for "brekky" as they say! grin

Mrs. W
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:10 PM
Quote
I just can't stand idly by while that is said about my good friend

actually, it is/was a general question about any/all WS...not just Mrs. K.

As for the alcohol flirting mentioned by Pep...once again, I would suggest that a "wonderful wife" would not be out drinking with another man. I just think that my idea of a "wonderful wife" would exclude these types of behaviors.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:12 PM
MEDC, were you a wonderful person when you were sleeping with the mother of your son while unmarried? Or were you a bottom of the barrel, horrible person that you believe all FWS were?

Mrs. W
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:15 PM
See MEDC I was a good person before the affair and I am a good person after the affair...No question that my actions during the affair made me a bad person...But I can tell you unequivocably that I did not live for 35 years prior to the affair as a horrible person...That is simply not true...It won't matter how many times you say it, it will still not be true...

Mrs. W
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:16 PM
I was NOT a wonderful person. BUT, I do not think pre-marital sex is even close to being in the same category as adultery. Do you? In fact, I stood up as a good person...and stopped her from aborting my child. We used protection...but using my belief system today..I don't think I was a good person for sleeping with her.

I do believe that there are a lot of good people that engage in premarital sex.

Quote
Or were you a bottom of the barrel, horrible person that you believe all FWS were?

WOW. That's a far stretch from wonderful wife. I guess there's nothing in between.

OKAY, I give up...all of you FWS were wonderful people that just happened to have gotten caught up in something bad.

crazy

eta...

Quote
MEDC, were you a wonderful person when you were sleeping with the mother of your son while unmarried? Or were you a bottom of the barrel, horrible person that you believe all FWS were?

were you a bad person for having premarital relations Mrs. W??? Or is the question based on her getting pregnant? I guess I could have let her have an abortion...then nobody would know. Well, except for me.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:17 PM
Quote
But I can tell you unequivocably that I did not live for 35 years prior to the affair as a horrible person.

never said you did. BUT a WONDERFUL wife would not have had an affair.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:19 PM
Unfortunately if you wish to argue that, I won't be around...I need a mani and a pedi...lol...So I must run...BUT...This is one place that you need to re-evaluate your thinking my good friend...

Have a good day!

Mrs. W
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:20 PM
Quote
It won't matter how many times you say it, it will still not be true...

and I will never believe that anyone that has an affair...or abuses their spouse in any other way...was a wonderful wife/husband.

Look, I have heard women on this site defend abusers as wonderful husbands....that doesn't make it so.

I have zero doubt as to the type of wife you are today.
Posted By: princessmeggy Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:23 PM
Quote
I do not think pre-marital sex is even close to being in the same category as adultery.

So fornication is not as bad as adultery?
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:27 PM
Correct.

Not every person subscribes to a religious theology that suggest that premarital sex is wrong. Adultery is an assault on a spouse by the very person that is sworn to protect them forever.

Premarital sex is a choice between two people to engage in a mutually enjoyable act (for those that are so inclined).

Adultery should be a crime. Premarital sex should always be a choice for those not bound by religious convictions.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:34 PM
I agree that adultery should be a crime.

But that doesn't negate the fact that fornication is also a serious sin; whether one "subscribes" to that belief is irrelevant.

I am not a fan of moral relativism, and that's what this is.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:36 PM
And I am not a fan of placing my morality on every other person. Not everyone is a Christian.

eta...and since premarital sex is NOT a UNIVERSAL standard for morality, I do not see it as moral relativism. If a Christian wants to argue why THEY should be able to have premarital sex, I would agree with the use of this term.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:42 PM
MEDC, I understand what you are saying; I truly do. I consider you to be a man who lives morally. But I disagree that fornication is not wrong for some people.

There are some societies (tribes) in which it is perfectly acceptable for married men to have sex with young teens or pre-teens to initiate them into womanhood. I consider that completely wrong, whether they do or not.
Posted By: Tabby1 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:49 PM
Originally Posted by keepitreal
There are some societies (tribes) in which it is perfectly acceptable for married man to have sex with young teens or pre-teens to initiate them into womanhood. I consider that completely wrong, whether they do or not.

You consider it completely wrong because of your religion, ergo, you would not partake in this. To do so would be immoral because it goes against your beliefs.

They do not consider it wrong, therefore, they are not acting immorally.

Any deeper than this acknowledgement of differences and it becomes judgement, which is not our place regardless of what religious background you come from. It should be enough to know that these differences exist and that when it comes to choosing a partner for yourself, you would prefer one with similar enoughbeliefs to you that you do not find yourself thinking that actions they take are immoral.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:50 PM
agreed
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by Tabby1
Originally Posted by keepitreal
There are some societies (tribes) in which it is perfectly acceptable for married man to have sex with young teens or pre-teens to initiate them into womanhood. I consider that completely wrong, whether they do or not.



They do not consider it wrong, therefore, they are not acting immorally.

Might I respectfully say, that sounds like a very foggy statement which could lead right down a slippery slope.

I'm glad I believe in moral absolutes.

OK, I'm off to work; have a great weekend everyone!
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:58 PM
Quote
There are some societies (tribes) in which it is perfectly acceptable for married men to have sex with young teens or pre-teens to initiate them into womanhood. I consider that completely wrong, whether they do or not.

btw...despite their beliefs, I think this should be ended since children are involved.
Posted By: princessmeggy Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:58 PM
Quote
Correct.

Not every person subscribes to a religious theology that suggest that premarital sex is wrong. Adultery is an assault on a spouse by the very person that is sworn to protect them forever.

Premarital sex is a choice between two people to engage in a mutually enjoyable act (for those that are so inclined).

Adultery should be a crime. Premarital sex should always be a choice for those not bound by religious convictions.

Thanks. Now I understand you a lot better.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 04:59 PM
Quote
I'm glad I believe in moral absolutes.

me too...but I don't think premarital sex is one of them.

murder
rape
stealing


those are some absolutes imho.
Posted By: Tabby1 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 05:23 PM
How is it foggy and how can it lead down a slippery slope? I know what my beliefs are and they are no less absolute that yours. But I can acknowledge that others have different beliefs than mine. While they may do things I would consider immoral for myself, there are things I do that are considered immoral by others. For example, in some cultures, the fact that I listen to music and don't hide my face in public is immoral. As long as they don't accuse me of being immoral, and I don't try to coerce them in to doing these things, we can coexist.
Posted By: Just Learning Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 06:06 PM

Hi All,

This is a very interesting discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have much time today to join in. But, thought I would lob this gernade (sp) into the discussion and then run. wink

My father often to explained to me his view of human nature. He said "Son, the two great motivators in life are fear and greed. If you run into someone that shows neither trait stay away from them they are dangerous."

Now perhaps he was being a little pessimistic, but over my lifetime, I have come to think he is right. Our moral code, whatever it is, is an attempt to address those motivators and turn them to "good" use. We all fear certain things, on here the logical number 1 thing would be having a spouse cheat. We all want many things beside just money, a faithful W/H we can depend on and that loves us is probably high on the list.

Civilization and moral codes are about balancing these things to minimize harm and offer protection. For example if I am a MORAL person, I will not have an affair with someone elses W even if I don't believe in the sanctity (sp) of marriage. Why? Because it would harm one or both of the members of the marriage. Yet I cannot deny the "greed" element in what motivates me. To do that would be to ignore a powerful motivator. Hence I have always taken precautions to never put myself in situations where I would be tempted to fail my marriage vows. If I am on a diet I don't buy cookies.

I think people are intrinsically good. I think people are motivated by fear and greed. That means good people can and do fail. However, if properly motivated (internally or externally) good people return to being good. I am not so naive to think that ALL people are intrinsically good. I would bet MEDC has met a few that are just plain evil. I sure have.

But, my sense that people are intrinsically good, is what motivates and challenges me when a WS comes here. They would not come here if deep down they weren't good and looking for a way out, even if they cannot see it, or think (consciously) that there is no way. The challenge is to help them find their way.

Interestingly, most do find their way. They become what they intrinsically always were...good. But, one should never under estimate the two great motivators. That is my thinking.

I look forward to your thoughts.

God Bless,

JL
Posted By: HerPapaBear Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 06:56 PM
Quote
They do not consider it wrong, therefore, they are not acting immorally.

Any deeper than this acknowledgement of differences and it becomes judgement, which is not our place regardless of what religious background you come from.


This statement jumped out at me! Yes, I know I'm using it (sorta)out of context, but I could not let it go by without mentioning why it jumped out at me.

I said the above quote while I was actively wayward.(GAG) I would hate to see the 2x4's if I were to use those words to defend any of my actions here on the MB site. There would be splinters flying everywhere.

BTW, where is it written that we are not to make judgements about people, places and things. We all must judge everyday. People made judgements about me while I was actively wayward and people make judgements about me in recovery. I have no problem with others looking at my actions and holding me accountable. That IS judging.
You cannot set a standard unless you are willing to judge.
A Moral Relativist may use the standard "Good vs Bad"
A Religious person may use the standard "Righteous vs Evil"
One still must judge to place anything within those boundaries.

My thoughts are, it is our place to judge regardless of what religious background we come from. Or else we prescribe to the standard that there are no standards.

OK, OK, I'm going back to work now!





Posted By: TrustDoe Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 06:57 PM


JustLearning,

You're very insightful. May I ask what your story is?
Posted By: HerPapaBear Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 07:01 PM
Originally Posted by TrustDoe
JustLearning,

You're very insightful. May I ask what your story is?

Maybe when you tell us yours!!!
Posted By: Dancing_Machine Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 07:23 PM
Quote
My thoughts are, it is our place to judge regardless of what religious background we come from. Or else we prescribe to the standard that there are no standards.

HRUH?

I thought it was God's place to judge, not ours.

Charlotte
Posted By: TrustDoe Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 07:34 PM
************
Posted By: TrustDoe Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 07:48 PM
**************
Posted By: princessmeggy Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 07:52 PM
Originally Posted by tst
Originally Posted by TrustDoe
JustLearning,

You're very insightful. May I ask what your story is?

Maybe when you tell us yours!!!

Tst, I think we all know the answer to that one, especially since your statement was totally ignored (SOP).
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 07:55 PM
Originally Posted by TrustDoe
Originally Posted by tst
We all must judge everyday. People made judgements about me while I was actively wayward and people make judgements about me in recovery. I have no problem with others looking at my actions and holding me accountable. That IS judging.

I agree with the above statements. In addition, I think that if there is no judgement from family, friends, peers, or even strangers, there would be less boundaries and we'll just do what makes us "feel good" which can lead to mindless, soul-less actions. One of the essentials that a free society needs is boundaries, rules, and standards and allowing judgment is neccessary to enforce them.

So, you don't hold grudges against people who have judged you?

BA,

I ask this in all sincerity. What is it that has kept you coming back to a board that has obviously not welcomed your presence? I can't imagine that you have that much free time that you would decide to use it to harass others.

Have you had the chance to see any of Randy Pausch's work? Specifically his Time Management and Last Lectures??? If not, they might help you deal with the obvious obsession you have with this board.

Time is a very precious commodity.
Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 08:08 PM
Originally Posted by Dancing_Machine
Quote
My thoughts are, it is our place to judge regardless of what religious background we come from. Or else we prescribe to the standard that there are no standards.

HRUH?

I thought it was God's place to judge, not ours.

Charlotte

No, we are called to judge, we are not to CONDEMN Charlotte...

Mrs. W
Posted By: HerPapaBear Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 08:23 PM
Originally Posted by TrustDoe
tst, how is it going?

Pretty good BA, how about you?

Posted By: Neak Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 08:40 PM
God judges eternal destinies.

Quote
2 Peter 2:9
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished...

We judge actions and teachings.

Quote
Matthew 7:15-21
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.


Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 08:45 PM
Rightio Neak! Glad you chimed in! smile

Mrs. W
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 08:47 PM
Not everyone believes in God. They are not subject to His rules here on Earth unless they choose to be(although Christian's believe they will be subject to His judgement). I am not subject to the laws of Allah even though Muslims believe him to be God (and their beliefs and faith are every bit as strong as a Christian's).

The Bible is pretty clear that we should judge other Christian's and that it is for God to judge non-Christian's.

Quote
1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (KJV)

12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by medc
I have zero doubt as to the type of wife you are today.

Interesting. So if MrsW (sorry MrsW) had another affair in the future (I know she won't but humour me) that would retrospectively change who she is today?

My wife changed her belief system that she had adhered to for over 23 years of marriage to accommodate her affair.

She was a horrible wife during her affair but not before or after.

12 months of an affair does not re-write 23 years of marriage or character.
Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 11:36 PM
Originally Posted by medc
me too...but I don't think premarital sex is one of them.

murder
rape
stealing


those are some absolutes imho.

They are your absolutes MEDC - not God's.

Tell me MEDC, in addition to adultery, what other sins does the BIBLE list as equally serious? Leave behing your religious beliefs taught by your church, all sin is mortal - but what sins does the bible list as precluding entry to the kingdom of God? You might be surprised.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 11:45 PM
actually any sin, unrepented from denies one entry into heaven. I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion...but there's the answer from a Christian perspective. As for others and their God/heaven...I couldn't say.

Just because all unrepented sins deny access to heaven does not mean all sin is equal.

and BK, I hope you noted the word "some" in my post.

Also of note...once again, it doesn't matter to some what the Bible says. There was a point in my life when I didn't give a rats behind about Christianity. I was not bound by their laws or rules.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 11:49 PM
Quote
Interesting. So if MrsW (sorry MrsW) had another affair in the future (I know she won't but humour me) that would retrospectively change who she is today?

that would mean my perception of her today was incorrect.

Quote
She was a horrible wife during her affair but not before or after.

see, this makes NO sense to me. How can one be a good wife one second and then the next...not. I am talking about the very moment that an affair starts something has to be absent in a person to do that...a moral disconnect that allows the first step into affair land.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/01/08 11:50 PM
Quote
12 months of an affair does not re-write 23 years of marriage or character.

and years of character do not erase an affair.

BK, I am not trying to change your mind and I know my thoughts on this subject are well thought out as well. I imagine that we will need to agree to disagree.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 12:41 AM
Originally Posted by bigkahuna
Originally Posted by medc
me too...but I don't think premarital sex is one of them.

murder
rape
stealing


those are some absolutes imho.

They are your absolutes MEDC - not God's.

Tell me MEDC, in addition to adultery, what other sins does the BIBLE list as equally serious? Leave behing your religious beliefs taught by your church, all sin is mortal - but what sins does the bible list as precluding entry to the kingdom of God? You might be surprised.

This was the point I was trying to make also. It matters not one whit whether or not you or I BELIEVE in God's absolutes; they are still absolute.

MEDC, here's an example of why I can't go along with your reasoning. I believe that abortion is evil; by reading some of your posts in the past, I thought you believed that as well.

However, here in the USA, abortion is perfectly legal according to the laws of the land. Do you believe that it's acceptable for a non Christian to get an abortion, and you have no problem with that, and still consider them a good person, as long as they believe the abortion is ok??
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 12:55 AM
not at all...since objectively...not based on one's religious beliefs, abortion terminates an innocent human life(DNA unique from parent...it is a human life at it's earliest stage).

BTW...I was against abortion long before I was a Christian.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:00 AM
Quote
This was the point I was trying to make also. It matters not one whit whether or not you or I BELIEVE in God's absolutes; they are still absolute.

A Muslim could say the same thing to you....it doesn't make it true just to say it.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:22 AM
It sounds to me as if you're saying some things, although legal, you consider wrong for all people, while other things that many people consider immoral, you DON'T think are immoral, as long as the people involved don't. In other words, you get to choose standards for other people, based on your beliefs. You get to choose whether to give someone a pass or not, regardless of God's word, based on YOUR absolutes.

That's what it sounds as if you're saying. I think that's a slippery slope. I'm more than a little surprised .

It's been an interesting discussion and I've enjoyed and learned.

Good night everyone. Have a blessed weekend!

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:27 AM
Quote
although legal, you consider wrong for all people

legal often times has nothing to do with moral.

I am deciding only for me.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:29 AM
Did God put anywhere in the Bible that a person that commits adultrery is a wonderful wife/husband prior to the act? Because THAT is what this discussion was about.
Posted By: lildoggie Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:31 AM
I believe the thread was originally set up to say that newly arrived WS dont always need to be hit around the head smile
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:33 AM
Originally Posted by medc
Quote
This was the point I was trying to make also. It matters not one whit whether or not you or I BELIEVE in God's absolutes; they are still absolute.

A Muslim could say the same thing to you....it doesn't make it true just to say it.

KIR...I am interested in your thoughts on this.

You tell me I am pushing my beliefs about absolutes on others...and this statement seems to do exactly that.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:34 AM
I believe you are right. Since the discussion(5 pages now) has been about exactly what I stated...I stand by my remark. If I wanted to say WHY the thread was started I would have said that.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:42 AM
OK, I was thinking, and had a question, so I logged back in and found this!
It is hard to stay away from good discussion! laugh

First, let me make sure I understand your position. Are you saying you DO judge all abortion as wrong for all people, or that you don't?

See, I do, because as a Christian, I think God made it very clear. I also think He made it clear that adultery and fornication is always wrong.

I understood you to say you agree about abortion, but not about fornication. Maybe I was wrong in my interpretation of your remarks. (I may be stating this in a confusing manner!)
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:45 AM
Quote
Are you saying you DO judge all abortion as wrong for all people, or that you don't?

I do. To me it is the same as killing a newborn. It is a HUMAN life. There is no debating that.

I will be real clear here. Even without Christianity, I believed abortion to be wrong. It is murder. Premarital sex is NOT murder, not rape, not stealing...while it is wrong for a Christian....70% of the world is NOT Christian and I do not set their morality....good people can disagree on this. On murder, they cannot IMHO.
Posted By: lildoggie Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:47 AM
Abject apologies, have gone back the required 5 pages and saw how the topic changed.
Posted By: hicktownmommy Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:50 AM
So we're looking at whether or not there is an absolute moral law? Interesting.

I studied the Holocaust in college and wrote my thesis on the question of morality in the concentration camps during the second world war. I looked at who is MORE culpable for their actions...is the bystander who knows that the Jews are going to their death but does nothing for fear of his own life just as responsible for their deaths as the soldier who ordered them sent there?

I came to the conclusion that the more choice you have in the matter, the more culpable you are. In the concentration camps, an amoral society was created, so culpability gave way to survival. In the world today, I think that it still stands true...the more choice you have (or perceive to have), the more culpable you are.

Now...before I'm attacked, I am open to other opinions and may end up changing my mind in the discussion...but that's what I ended up with after a year of personal study.

HTM
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:50 AM
cry
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:53 AM
Jerry, I absolutely loved your post. I don't know why, but I did. I love this -

Quote
Thus it is, that our God is a God of second chances(or third or fouth...). Labels are only important to us folks on earth. Being rightous and correct in our daily lives, is who we are now, and the past cannot corrupt a person who is repentant, and lives for who they have become today, regardless of the mistakes that got us here.


Bob. I didn't know that Sqid still had little ways about her that are not quite, but somewhat bordering on wayward. I didn't know that. It is in all sincerety that I say I hope one day she fully realizes her value and no longer needs the shallow ways of someone with low self-esteem. Because that is what it sounds like to me. Low self-esteem. And no one, not even you can fix that. She has to do that all by herself. By doing esteemable things. Whatever that is to her. I still like her though, she can be quite funny, but I realize your frustration.

JL, I disagree with your fathers assessment of the human race being motivated by fear and greed. I think we are motivated by either love or fear. The only two true emotions. Greed would be a spinoff of fear, I believe, as would hate.

Greed is of the corporate world, big pharma, medical insurance companies, big oil, etc, and the power greed of the political world, etc. I do not know in my own life of any truly greedy people. Only fearful people. And of those motivated by love or by a lack of love.

Anyway, I want to quote something that I read today that has some relevance on this thread -

"To every man there openeth a way,
And the high soul climbs the high way,
And the low soul climbs the low way,
And in between on the misty flats,
The rest drift to and fro,
But to every man there openeth
A high way and a low
And every man decideth
The way his soul shall go."

I do not believe for one second that after we know better, we would not do better. It is only ignorance that would allow us to take the low road, and having taken it, learned from it and repented, I do not believe we could ever take that road again.

And if we do, God have mercy on us. For we have chosen, eyes wide open, to deceive and to destroy. Those are the people I fear for and worry about. Yikes.

But to the rest of us, none of us would chose the low road, knowing what we know now. I don't care what boundaries are or are not in place. That was my point about the truly repentent.


Posted By: lildoggie Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:54 AM
Que?

Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:56 AM
It's hard for me to put into words what I am trying to convey. But I'll try. See, I think this thinking is dangerous, because it opens up for human error and wrongheaded opinions. It is YOUR opinion, and mine too, that abortion is wrong. It is also God's. But you said we can't use God's opinion since such a large percentage of the world does not believe in Him.

So all that leaves us with, MEDC, is an opinion. There are many many people who have an opinion that is diametrically opposed to ours. Their opinion is perfectly leagal. Who gets to decide, if we have to leave God out of it, if they are right or we are right?

That's why we MUST keep God in it.

And then you also have the fornication issue.

Think of this MEDC, we are both against adultery. But I can tell you due to having some unfortunate acquaintances, that some people think that swinging is NOT adultery and a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. Do you think they are ok too? I sure don't! Because I believe swinging DOES damage people.

And back full circle, SO DOES FORNICATION. I guess I am just shocked that you think fornication is acceptable for non-Christians or anyone else. It is so very damaging.

God knew what would hurt us. His laws are for EVERYONE. Does gravity affect only those who believe it? No, it is a law of God that affects all of mankind. If I believe in God (which I do!) I MUST believe that His ways were meant for everyone, no exceptions.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:02 AM
Quote
But you said we can't use God's opinion since such a large percentage of the world does not believe in Him.

We can use it for Christian's. For non-Christian's....it is a waste of time.

Quote
It is so very damaging.


It is for some and not for others. I know a lot of people that live happy, healthy lives that engage in premarital relations.

Are Allah's laws for everyone????? yes or no? I don't think so...no do I expect that a Muslim will believe as I do.


Quote
If I believe in God (which I do!) I MUST believe that His ways were meant for everyone, no exceptions.

If that works for you , fine. I believe and feel it is supported by the scripture I cited that Christian's are bound by God's laws and that all will be judged by God.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:09 AM
I know a lot of seemingly healthy happy people who smoke too. But their lungs are being damaged whether they realize it or not.
And I believe that those fornicating are being damaged too.

I see that we are not going to agree with each other, so I'll quit beating the horse! smile
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:10 AM
I have asked you numerous questions which you have ignored.
Posted By: Rock__ Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:12 AM
This is a very good thread.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:13 AM
Originally Posted by medc
I have asked you numerous questions which you have ignored.
OOPS, sorry! Which questions have I ignored? I'll look back and try to answer.
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:16 AM
Quote
And I believe that those fornicating are being damaged too.

For what it's worth, coming from someone who has had premarital sex all her life (until now, I'm legal now, Yippeeee) I agree with you. It damaged me, and it damaged those that I was with and loved.

I have the highest hopes, and I speak to her of this often, that my daughter waits until she is married.

There is a sacredness to marriage, where sex is a celebration of marriage itself, and I believe that was and always will be it's intent.

I agree with you whole heartedly on this point.

My adult friends however, can do as they choose in this area. I know of the damage, but they apparently do not. And it is not my place to enlighten them, even if I could.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:17 AM
Here's the only one I see.

"Are Allah's laws for everyone????? yes or no? "

I believe that the ONLY laws that are for everyone, are those of God the Creator (the Trinity actually). By virtue of creating us, He is in charge. No other god has that disctinction.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:18 AM
Thanks for your input, Weaver!
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:19 AM
well, hopefully Muslims don't decide to start holding you to their beliefs.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:21 AM
What were the other questions? I must be going blind. You said there were numerous ones.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:22 AM
FWIW, I don't believe I have the right to put to death or suicide bomb someone who disagrees with me on fornication or adultery.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:22 AM
Originally Posted by medc
Originally Posted by medc
Quote
This was the point I was trying to make also. It matters not one whit whether or not you or I BELIEVE in God's absolutes; they are still absolute.

A Muslim could say the same thing to you....it doesn't make it true just to say it.

KIR...I am interested in your thoughts on this.

You tell me I am pushing my beliefs about absolutes on others...and this statement seems to do exactly that.

your thoughts on this were not offered.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:24 AM
Originally Posted by medc
Did God put anywhere in the Bible that a person that commits adultrery is a wonderful wife/husband prior to the act? Because THAT is what this discussion was about.

there's this.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:26 AM
No, I do not believe I have the right to decide what is absolute. I believe that only God decides that. So I would not push my own opinions on others. However, I would feel comfortable sharing with anyone who was interested, what God says about a particular subject, to the best of my knowlege.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:28 AM
You ARE pushing your opinion on everyone when you suggest that they are subject to your God. A Muslim doesn't give a hoot about our God.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:29 AM
Sorry, I thought you were asking a facetious or rhetorical question. To my knowlege, no He did not say that prior to adultery, a person is always a wonderful husband or wife. To my knowlege, He also did not say they were not. To my knowlege, it wasn't addressed in Scripture, but I'm open to correction on that if you can cite a Scripture pertaining to that.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:31 AM
MEDC, I am not persecuting not putting to death Muslims. However I would be a very poor Christian, if I was unwilling to share with them what I believe to be the truth.

As Christians, it is our commission to go out and teach all men about Christ. I hope and pray that I will always have the courage to fill that commission.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:35 AM
Good night again. It's been a long day. Thanks for the lively discussion!
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:36 AM
Okay, KIR...this is going way off topic now. I agree with your last post. Sharing your beliefs is fine... expecting that everyone is subject to Christian laws is not imo.

Good night.
Posted By: princessmeggy Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 12:30 PM
Interesting. MEDC, as a believer (which you are right?) what do you think about this scripture in Romans 14:11?

Quote
For it is written, As I live, said the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Do you think the Lord was excluding unbelievers, Muslims, whatever, that every knee shall bow... and every tongue confess...?
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:06 PM
Quote
They are not subject to His rules here on Earth unless they choose to be(although Christian's believe they will be subject to His judgement).

I think this comment from me answers your question.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 01:27 PM
Quote
Do you think the Lord was excluding unbelievers, Muslims, whatever, that every knee shall bow... and every tongue confess...?

I am also certain that my believing that the Lord will ultimately judge all has zero meaning to a Muslim. Since we live in a world where others have different religious beliefs and none of them are proven...but based on faith...that we should be respectful that people have different beliefs.

I think enough strife has been caused in this world by trying to shove our own religious doctrine down the throats of others...consider the Twin Towers in New York or the Crusades...while we do not need to agree on religion, we should respect those around us. It is for God to call people to Him and for others to live as an example of His love.

More people are turned off by religion because of the disrespect that certain members of that group show towards others.

Just my opinion.

Posted By: MrsWondering Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 02:41 PM
MEDC...

I think why your views on this puzzle people (I think I'm right in thinking that it puzzles others -- it does me), is that you are so outspoken on so many things...You typically do not care to offend people at all...Political Correctness has certainly never seemed to be your bag...Until now...About Christianity of all things...Jesus said that his name would offend...Me? I don't care if it does, I will still stand up and proudly proclaim it...There is but one truth, and it doesn't matter if others believe that or not...It is TRUE, and does not depend on their belief to make it so...

I know you said that no religion has been "proven"...I think there are many books you should read if you feel that way about Christianity...A good one is The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel...I have friends that were raised as atheists, and they will tell you that they now believe for one reason and one reason only...Because it is TRUE...

Anyway, not trying to cause a rift, just wanted to let you know my thoughts...

Mrs. W

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 03:15 PM
Originally Posted by MrsWondering
MEDC...

I think why your views on this puzzle people (I think I'm right in thinking that it puzzles others -- it does me), is that you are so outspoken on so many things...You typically do not care to offend people at all...Political Correctness has certainly never seemed to be your bag...Until now...About Christianity of all things...Jesus said that his name would offend...Me? I don't care if it does, I will still stand up and proudly proclaim it...There is but one truth, and it doesn't matter if others believe that or not...It is TRUE, and does not depend on their belief to make it so...

I know you said that no religion has been "proven"...I think there are many books you should read if you feel that way about Christianity...A good one is The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel...I have friends that were raised as atheists, and they will tell you that they now believe for one reason and one reason only...Because it is TRUE...

Anyway, not trying to cause a rift, just wanted to let you know my thoughts...

Mrs. W

it's not political correctness that I am professing...it is respect. I respect those that deserve it and have no problem showing contempt for those that do not.

I've read the books Mrs. W...probably more than most. Every single one of them is full of assumptions that while I agree with the authors...are very easy to pick apart. It is not by science that we are called...but by faith.

It still comes down to faith and the Lord calling those to Him. I can stand for Christ without being rude to other people and their beliefs. Muslims also feel there is but one truth. God has afforded people free will to be subject to His laws here on Earth.

And while my views may puzzle some people...they are consistent with scripture and are a reflection of what I have learned in my walk. I believe there is one true God. Others feel differently. When He calls them, they will understand as I do...it will not be because of my chest thumping.
Posted By: TogetherAlone Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 03:46 PM
Mrs. W, this is a rare moment indeed. For once I agree with medc.

If you or I had been born into a devout Muslim community, our faith would have been in Allah and the teachings of Mohammed. We would consider 'goodness' to be our adherence to the religious principles we had been taught.

The fact that any of us follow the teachings of Christ is largely down to the culture and community we were born into, whether we like the idea or not.

There are likely to be many people on this forum who are Jewish; while they believe in the same Judaeo-Christian G*d as Christians, but do not believe in the divinity of Christ. Their faith in their own beliefs are just as 'true' to them as yours are to you.

Given that our religious faith is so heavily influenced by the culture we are born into and grow up in, having tolerance for the absolute conviction of others seems to me to be a necessary requirement for all of us.

As is tolerance for atheists and agnostics who have come to that conviction in a similar way to how we reach religious faith. It's the same process, with a different conclusion.

I'm not aware that even the most brilliant philosopher has ever managed to prove the existence of God, never mind the correctness of any particular religious position. Faith means exactly what is says.

Judging other people against the principles they claim to espouse is reasonable. Judging the actions of people who hold to quite different principles according to whether they fit OUR standards is not reasonable. Deciding that it's OK to do that in the name of our religion makes me think of....9/11.
Posted By: Dancing_Machine Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 03:50 PM
Quote
More people are turned off by religion because of the disrespect that certain members of that group show towards others.

Yes. This is VERY true.

Charlotte
Posted By: Dancing_Machine Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 03:51 PM
Quote
Judging other people against the principles they claim to espouse is reasonable. Judging the actions of people who hold to quite different principles according to whether they fit OUR standards is not reasonable. Deciding that it's OK to do that in the name of our religion makes me think of....9/11.

Very good point, TA!! Thank you.

Charlotte
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 04:09 PM
Originally Posted by TogetherAlone
There are likely to be many people on this forum who are Jewish; while they believe in the same Judaeo-Christian G*d as Christians, but do not believe in the divinity of Christ. Their faith in their own beliefs are just as 'true' to them as yours are to you.

But that is not how "truth" works. Competing truth claims cannot possibly both be true. I can believe in the man in the moon, but that does not mean his existence is TRUE. When Jesus claims he is the "way, the truth, the light," that is either true or it is false. Faith is the not the practical equivalent of IMAGINATION and confusing PERSPECTIVE with TRUTH relegates truth to perspective. It is no such thing. WE are not talking about imaginary friends here.

My "faith" in Jesus Christ is not a blind faith that is based on things UNKNOWN, but on a master that is UNSEEN. I also believe in CUBA even though I have never been there. I don't believe in Christ for any other reason than its TRUE. I am sure as he11 not going to waste my time on some imaginary friend. My faith is not a blind faith in an imaginary god, but one that evolved from study of the evidence. It is a faith that is contingent upon facts and evidence that lead to that truth. By the same token, I do not not believe in the man in the moon or Big Foot or Santa, because I have no evidence.

I have no objection to anyone claiming that their god is true, but that does obligate me to state that mine is NOT. Tolerance of other beliefs does not mean that I DENY the truth of CHRIST or suspend all logic and claim that competing truth claims are true. That is impossible. If something is true, it is true to ALL or it is NOT TRUE. And a persons perspective has nothing to do with reality.

I am very tolerant of other beliefs, even opposing beliefs, but I will NOT deny the truth of mine in order accommodate theirs and I don't understand why Christians are expected to do so.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 04:10 PM
Several interesting things to comment upon. Not sure I feel "up to it" or even if it's worth the time. However, differences of opinion may well offer opportunity to explore differing beliefs and possibly cause people to THINK and evaluate their opinions that they use to govern their lives and their actions.



Quote
medc said: You ARE pushing your opinion on everyone when you suggest that they are subject to your God. A Muslim doesn't give a hoot about our God.

There are a few "operative words" in this thought that anyone might want to consider.

"Pushing." If stating one's belief (or opinion if you prefer) is wrong, then it makes no sense for MB to exist, let alone for all the threads of opinions to exist. It would be wrong to disagree with anyone, let's say a "foggy" Wayward Spouse, who comes to MB and states opinions in support of "Wayward" behavior, after all, "A Wayward doesn't give a hoot about our" opinions or beliefs concerning marriage that apply to all marriages regardless of individual variations of beliefs.

"Suggest." Suggesting something is not "requiring" that anyone else "embrace" your opinion. Neither does THEIR opposition to YOUR opinion, stated and/or suggested, require that YOU are "subject" their opinions.

"Our God." By "Our God" it seems as though one is "pushing" the "suggestion" that there IS more than ONE God, who is sovereign over ALL people, regardless of their beliefs or opinions.

" A Muslim doesn't give a hoot about our God. This may be an opinion, but it is NOT true fact as the Koran is very specific about ANYONE who does not accept Islam and THEIR belief as to who and what God is. Muslim DO care enormously about "our God," if you mean the "Christian" God, the "Jewish" God, the "Hindu" God, the "Any God" but the "Allah" of Islam. In fact, they "care" so much that they are killing people all over the world who disagree with them and issuing "fatwah's" against any "suggestion" by anyone that they are "wrong" in their beliefs and in their attempts to "force" Islam on the rest of the world. Shoot, within marriages and families, many Muslims BELIEVE that "honor killings" are justified AND "necessary" to impose their belief system on others.

Now, given that the topic began with "Waywards" and how they are often treated here on MB **********edit******* how is that any different than what the Muslims are trying to do with their "beliefs?" There is no difference. It is the imposition of one person's, or a combined group of people, OPINION of what is "right and applicable to everyone else."

The very same thing, of imposing opinions on others because of someone's own opinion, ************edit********** How is that ANY different from what Muslims are doing? How is that "imposition of opinion" rather than "published rules that are applicable to everyone" (sort of like the 10 Commandments) in any way similar to the "Christian" position of "suggesting but not requiring" that Christ IS the way and that SHOULD be obeyed?" Now if you want to argue that the 10 Commandments are only "applicable" to persons of the Jewish and/or Christian faiths, and not the "world at large," you CAN certainly argue that opinion. ***********edit**********

Whether or not you or I personally believe in God (for purposes of argument, the "Christian God" as revealed in the Holy Bible, the ONE God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is NOT the question. The question is one of TRUTH. Truth exists independently of "opinion," and even independently of "SINCERE belief." TRUTH IS. It is that fact that is the "object" of question and "opinion" about God, and about what God has established is TRUE for all people, regardless of their acceptance or denial of HIS truth.



Quote
keepitreal said: This was the point I was trying to make also. It matters not one whit whether or not you or I BELIEVE in God's absolutes; they are still absolute.

Medc responded: A Muslim could say the same thing to you....it doesn't make it true just to say it.

Both of these statements, though appearing contradictory, are true statements in so far as they go.

The issue is one of "true truth," and not just human opinion.

To take medc's response a little further, "A Christian could say the same thing to someone else (a Muslim, or any other 'faith system')ā€¦..it doesn't make it true just to say it." TRUTH is NOT dependent upon a "Christian's" OPINION anymore than it is dependent upon anyone's opinion about anything.

The opposite of TRUTH is relativism, of denial that there IS a truth that operated independently of any person's opinion. The existence of that TRUTH is applicable to anyone, anywhere, no matter who "wants to believe it" or not.

So the issue really is the age long search that so many people embark upon; "What IS truth?" "How can we KNOW what is true rather than just opinion?" "Who HAS the true authority to ESTABLISH 'right and wrong' behavior for everyone."

In the "world at large," that answer (for Christians) is God.

**********edit**********

In the world at large, believers are SERVANTS of the Master (God) and His established rules that apply both to them and to the world at large (those who are not part of the "clique" of people who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior for all mankind).

******edit**********

That's why God has set His "rules" in place and established them as the "judgment standard" for all people.

*********edit***********

"Usurping" God's published rules (see: Holy Bible and Torah) is wrong, because God established and codified THE rules by which HE judges ALL of mankind. It is NOT open to "relativism," though humans often WILL try to use relativism as the argument to enable them to DO whatever they WANT to do.



And "morality" is in the same basket. If "morals" and "moral standards" are relative and not absolute, then ANYTHING anyone wants to do, for their OWN reasons, IS NOT WRONG and cannot be said to be wrong by anyone as being applicable to anyone OTHER THAN themselves. And that still does not "automatically" confer TRUTH to what any given person believes is "true for themselves." That's just the old "I may NOT agree with what you believe, but you can believe whatever you want to believe." That is true, but it also does not confer truth. It confers "relativism," that there are NO "absolute standards" by which anything can be judged. It simple "grants" everyone the ability to determine "truth" for themselves and the ability to MAKE truth be whatever they WANT it to be.

"Murder" also falls under that "relativistic" opinion, so that "honor killings," for example, are NOT murder even though it "imposes" one person's opinion (belief system) upon another, whether it's by way of abortion or by way of killing women and children "for the honor of the father and his faith." "Cultural morality" is just another way of saying all things are "relative" and there are NO "true" absolutes that apply to all people regardless of their own opinions.


The issue has also been raised that a Wayward Spouse is "always" a "wayward spouse," even if that moniker of "Former" is applied. The argument has been stated that they CANNOT be a "wonderful spouse" by virtue of the FACT of adultery. I would submit that no one is a "wonderful spouse" because that "absolute" term cannot be applied to anyone else other than an individual who might hold to the belief that anyone CAN be a "wonderful spouse." There are MANY things, including adultery, that are not "wonderful" in a spouse. That is the nature of being a "sinful" person. All that anyone could say is that there might be "degrees" of "wonderfulness" and "badness." To give just one analogy, it has been taught to a lot of children that "spanking" as a corrective punishment by parents is "Child Abuse." Certainly there IS a "line" at which corporal punishment CAN cross the line into abuse, but to "blanket" say that ANY spanking is, de facto, "abuse" is imposing someone else's "standard" or "belief" on someone else and goes way beyond merely "suggesting" that such behavior or belief in a parent's right to spank their child is wrong regardless of their opinion.



Quote
keepitreal said: But you said we can't use God's opinion since such a large percentage of the world does not believe in Him.

Medc responded: We can use it for Christian's. For non-Christian's....it is a waste of time.

EXPECTING a non-Christian (for example an unbeliever in Christ, a Muslim, Atheist, etc.) to accept God's "opinions" and then submit their will to His will IS a "waste of time." Unless they were to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, all "things Christian" are "foolishness" to them and not applicable to them.

However, it does not follow from that "waste of time" issue that a Christian cannot suggest that other beliefs are wrong. If that were so, there would have been NO point in the Apostles, let alone Jesus Himself, telling anyone that "their beliefs," though perhaps even sincerely held beliefs, are wrong according to the One True God. This is where knowing WHAT a Christian believes and WHY they believe it are important, with the Word of God as the "measure" by which those things are "judged."

Additionally, Christians (if one accepts the premise of the first part of medc's responsive opinion, "We can use it for Christian's," are defined by, and "governed by" the "opinion of God" as He has revealed His "opinion" to us in His Word (the Bible, the Scriptures). That is the clear teaching of Jesus, and reiterated by Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16. It is God's standard (opinion) that is "superior" to any contrary belief by any individual who claims to be a "Christian." Any other "opinion," is just that, an opinion that is contrary to the revealed "word of God on the subject of God, God's standards (see the 1st and 2nd "Greatest Commandments," and salvation from sin" according to God who establishes TRUTH regardless of personal opinion.


So back to the suggestion that Wayward spouses are ALWAYS "Wayward Spouses."

Quote
medc said: actually any sin, unrepented from denies one entry into heaven. I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion...but there's the answer from a Christian perspective. As for others and their God/heaven...I couldn't say.

Just because all unrepented sins deny access to heaven does not mean all sin is equal.

and BK, I hope you noted the word "some" in my post.

Also of note...once again, it doesn't matter to some what the Bible says. There was a point in my life when I didn't give a rats behind about Christianity. I was not bound by their laws or rules.



and years of character do not erase an affair.

BK, I am not trying to change your mind and I know my thoughts on this subject are well thought out as well. I imagine that we will need to agree to disagree.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the FACT that an affair occurred is "erased" or that when a choice to engage in an affair is made there is a "character flaw" at work. That is WHAT sin is, a "character flaw" in all of mankind. We are all sinful and inclined TOWARD sin, according to God and by HIS definition of what sin IS.

By the same "measure" (God's revealed truth in the matter as He has revealed it to us in Scripture), the idea that ANY "unrepented of sin" KEEPS someone out of heaven would seem to go against, and be contrary to, what God has clearly said about salvation and HOW someone receives God's forgiveness for ALL sin. It is NOT any given sin, repented of or not repented of, that "keeps" someone out of heaven and an eternal relationship with God. It is solely their position with God THROUGH their acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior that determines whether or not God DOES forgive them of their sins.

That is the idea that God places a believer's sins as "far as the East is from the West," and "I will remember your sins no more." Without Christ, no one receives forgiveness from God for any sin and will NOT be in heaven with God in an eternal relationship with Him.

All sins are NOT equal, but ALL sin anathema to God and God has provided just ONE way by which ALL sins, great sins and small sins, can be forgiven and a relationship with God reestablished.

With respect to FORMER Wayward Spouses, the issue of "character," of their status TODAY, the operative word is FORGIVENESS. The term, as used by God, is NOT to imply that the sin did not occur. The term is, to pick up on medc's previous analogy to the legal system and the retention of a "record" of wrongs, equivalent to having the "record" EXPUNGED, so that there is NO "record" any longer.

That is why the three promises that a Forgiver makes to one that they forgive are so important. It establishes a "new reality" and effectively "expunges" the past "bad behavior" from the "forgiven one" BY the Forgiver. That is what is meant by "forgive others as you have been forgiven your sins by God."

Whether we "fight" our "human nature" to want to retain some "one-upsmanship" position by keeping the "reality" of past "waywardness" current is irrelevant when it comes to "forgiving as God has forgiven me." I DID sin. I continue to commit some sins. I am not perfect. Neither is anyone else. But God has clearly revealed HOW we are to "confess our sins one to another" and to repent of them (means "turn toward God") and receive forgiveness. The FACT is that ALL of our sins; past, present, and future; ARE forgiven for all believers NOT because we DO "something" (like confess them) but because of what Jesus Christ did and that HE imparts His righteousness to all believers who have accepted Him as their personal Lord and Savior.

"Neither do I condemn you. Go and leave your life of sin." Leaving (repenting) a lifestyle that is sinful ENDS that "time of waywardness" and established TODAY, the only "state of being" that is relevant. TODAY is what shapes each "today" as what was a "future day" becomes TODAY, each and every day.

"Consequences" that result from prior sin may NOT be "expunged." We MAY still have to live the rest of our lives with some of those consequences. That is ONE of the principles of MB, to have NO CONTACT with the "affair partner" for the rest of the "former wayward spouse's" life.

But the sin itself, and the "title" that describes someone IN that state of sin, ARE to be "expunged." That is, IF they are truly to be forgiven.


Quote
it's not political correctness that I am professing...it is respect. I respect those that deserve it and have no problem showing contempt for those that do not.

I can stand for Christ without being rude to other people and their beliefs.

Now it would appear that "I respect those that deserve it and have no problem showing contempt for those that do not." is inconsistant with:

"I can stand for Christ without being rude to other people and their beliefs."


It would seem that "showing CONTEMPT for those that "do not" IS offering an opinion that IS okay to be RUDE to someone who holds beliefs contrary to our own.

The "just have to agree to disagree" sort of response on something like this is, again, just another form of 'relativism.'

The STANDARD is God and His Standards, not our opinions.

God bless.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 04:12 PM
p.s. not that it matters much, but I was raised by atheists to be an atheist. THAT is the "culture" I was raised in. I do not have the kind of faith required to be an atheist, though.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 04:32 PM
Quote
I will NOT deny the truth of mine in order accommodate theirs and I don't understand why Christians are expected to do so.

Nor should you. I don't think anyone suggests you should deny that...just as I will not suggest that a Muslim deny theirs. God is sovereign and will call those to His table as He sees fit.

Quote
Competing truth claims cannot possibly both be true.

I agree 100%. That doesn't mean that others don't feel the same way regarding their "truths." Until there is irrefutable proof, it will all be a matter of faith and not fact.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 04:40 PM
Quote
Quote:Competing truth claims cannot possibly both be true.

I agree 100%. That doesn't mean that others don't feel the same way regarding their "truths." Until there is irrefutable proof, it will all be a matter of faith and not fact.

Agreed. And what in your opinion constitutes "irrefutable proof?"

It would seem as though God provided such "irrefutable proof" in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is there something that might be "refutable" in that? I am really unclear as to what you are arguing here.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 04:49 PM
against my better judgement, I will respond to you but one time FH.

I believe based on faith that Christ was risen from his mortal grave. I do not think that there is any evidence that scientifically supports that...it is based on faith. The records of this event would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Many very learned people that are not called to Christ can make a good intellectual case against Christianity...they only see with their minds and not their heart. Nothing in faith is irrefutable until one is called to His house.

FH, I would appreciate that you discontinue directing questions towards me. I will not post to you again. You have not been disrespectful here in the least...but based soley on our history, I have no desire to communicate with you. Obviously, you are free to post as you please...and I think once you get past the issues you have with the mods...you can do a lot of good here. I just refuse to engage in debates with you moving forward.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 04:50 PM
MEDC, I have no interest in having faith in anything that is not FACT. I may as well believe in the tooth fairy if my faith is based on nothing. My "belief" is meaningless if its not true. And I don't know many people who believe in things they don't know are true.

I am a Christian only because I investigated the underlying FACTS and found it be true. The same as I investigated the FACTS and believe the existence of Cuba to be true. The same as I believe in the history of the American Revolution. I have never been there, didn't see it happen, but I have FAITH it exists based on FACTS and EVIDENCE. And it's existence is either TRUE today or it is FALSE today. My faith is NOT based on things UNKNOWN, only on a GOD that is UNSEEN.

See, the key issue for me is not what others believe, but WHAT IS TRUE. That is what matters to me. But just as others have the right to believe their religion is true, I have the same right. Tolerance is needed for opposing views, after all.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 05:45 PM
Mel, I see where you are coming from and since my heart is involved in the decision, it is fact to me. BUT, FAITH would not be required if it were all verifiable fact...observation would suffice. I NEVER said your faith was based on NOTHING. I didn't even come close to saying that. Your faith is based on your personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

I think your belief is true...and yes, it would be meaningless if it isn't true. YOU know it to be true because you were called to Christ.

I do not believe in Christ because of facts I investigated....I have faith because He touched my heart.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 05:51 PM
Quote
But just as others have the right to believe their religion is true, I have the same right. Tolerance is needed for opposing views, after all.

you've made this point several times now...and I have responded to it previously. I have said NOTHING that infringes on your right to express your faith or beliefs. I think you should continue to express yourself as you see fit.

AS IF I had any control over that mouth of yours!!!!! wink

Have a nice day Mel.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 05:52 PM
thanks friend, I understand completely where you are coming from and hear this from many Christians. I am going to guess you are a cradle Christian?
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 05:58 PM
never heard that term before Mel. I came to Christ in my mid 30's(at a Harvest Crusade). I was baptized at 35 (I just turned 45).
I was born and raised Catholic and left the Catholic Church in my late 20's (I think you know the reasoning behind that).

I go to a church that is considered by many to be a Bible "thumping" church...but actually find it to be quite tolerant of other beliefs and cultures(doesn't mean we think they are right).
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 06:31 PM
***************edit**************

Contact mods or Admin with concerns about MB
Posted By: shinethrough Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 06:31 PM
So the question becomes, when will all Christian faiths unite once again under the the same altar? When will we be able to put aside our diferences and unite to worship under ONE altar of Christ? The one that was left to us when He accended to heaven?

We have taken His Cross and splinterred it into a thousand pieces.

Any hope for Christians to unite?

Doesn't look good, but I pray.

All Blessings,
Jerry
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 06:35 PM
Quote
Mel, I see where you are coming from and since my heart is involved in the decision, it is fact to me. BUT, FAITH would not be required if it were all verifiable fact...observation would suffice. I NEVER said your faith was based on NOTHING. I didn't even come close to saying that. Your faith is based on your personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

I think your belief is true...and yes, it would be meaningless if it isn't true. YOU know it to be true because you were called to Christ.

I do not believe in Christ because of facts I investigated....I have faith because He touched my heart.

medc, no response is needed to this post if you don't feel like posting anything, but I had to agree with what you posted here.

But this position is different from what you said earlier about "irrefutable proof." That's why Jesus himself said to some people, "even if someone were to rise from the dead, you would not believe." PROOF is independent of "opinion." People can, and do, CHOOSE to reject proven things all the time, and the resurrection of Jesus is no different.

God bless.
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 07:39 PM
**EDIT**

LB, if you have concerns, questions about the moderation of this board, please email the mods instead of posting it here.

Thanks, Revera
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 07:57 PM
**EDIT**
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 08:03 PM
**EDIT**
Posted By: Revera Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 08:08 PM
LB, as I said before, if you have complaints about this board, please email the mods.
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 08:17 PM
**edit**
Posted By: LovingBoundaries Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 08:27 PM
I'm just not getting this, Revera, as evidenced by the first time that I get edited by a Moderator since I registered in 2001 it turns into five edits in a row!

Sorry to have been a problem for you.

Again, enjoy your Saturday (I'm not going to post any more smile ).


Posted By: Revera Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 08:29 PM
Lovingboundaries, we do appreciate your cooperation.
Posted By: faithful follower Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 08:38 PM
Quote
I do not believe in Christ because of facts I investigated....I have faith because He touched my heart.
That's lovely, medc.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 08:53 PM
**EDIT**

Enough! If you want to discuss the editing of your post, email Justuss2@aol.com.
Posted By: JustUss Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 09:02 PM
FH,

I edited that post. Guess I neglected to check the "edited by" box....

Mods or Admin can be contacted by clicking on their names where they are listed, on the bottom of the forums.

Feel free to contact me at any time.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 09:05 PM
Quote
Quote:***************edit**************

Contact mods or Admin with concerns about MB

Well, I tried to contact the mods or Admin, but the "notify" button, according to the system, has already been used and the system will not let me take my "concerns" to the mods or the Admin.

Curious.

Curiouser still is that the ENTIRE post was edited out of existence, not even edited for whatever part someone thought needed "editing," AND NO notice of it being edited by a Moderator is on the remaining blank post, just the "edited" notice.

Very curious. Just what about this entire post seemed to need removal of the ENTIRE post?

Well, I tried to notify the Mods via the "notify" button but on the quoted message, but once again got the "already been notified message," so I cannot add in any message TO the moderators or my email address for a response as has been requested.

I would appreciate if no one would use the "notify" button on this post so that I CAN "notify the mods."

Thank you.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 11:10 PM
Originally Posted by MrsWondering
MEDC...

I think why your views on this puzzle people (I think I'm right in thinking that it puzzles others -- it does me), is that you are so outspoken on so many things...You typically do not care to offend people at all...Political Correctness has certainly never seemed to be your bag...Until now...About Christianity of all things...Jesus said that his name would offend...Me? I don't care if it does, I will still stand up and proudly proclaim it...There is but one truth, and it doesn't matter if others believe that or not...It is TRUE, and does not depend on their belief to make it so...

I know you said that no religion has been "proven"...I think there are many books you should read if you feel that way about Christianity...A good one is The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel...I have friends that were raised as atheists, and they will tell you that they now believe for one reason and one reason only...Because it is TRUE...

Anyway, not trying to cause a rift, just wanted to let you know my thoughts...

Mrs. W

Just wanted to highlight this great post.
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/02/08 11:12 PM
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Originally Posted by TogetherAlone
There are likely to be many people on this forum who are Jewish; while they believe in the same Judaeo-Christian G*d as Christians, but do not believe in the divinity of Christ. Their faith in their own beliefs are just as 'true' to them as yours are to you.

But that is not how "truth" works. Competing truth claims cannot possibly both be true. I can believe in the man in the moon, but that does not mean his existence is TRUE. When Jesus claims he is the "way, the truth, the light," that is either true or it is false. Faith is the not the practical equivalent of IMAGINATION and confusing PERSPECTIVE with TRUTH relegates truth to perspective. It is no such thing. WE are not talking about imaginary friends here.

My "faith" in Jesus Christ is not a blind faith that is based on things UNKNOWN, but on a master that is UNSEEN. I also believe in CUBA even though I have never been there. I don't believe in Christ for any other reason than its TRUE. I am sure as he11 not going to waste my time on some imaginary friend. My faith is not a blind faith in an imaginary god, but one that evolved from study of the evidence. It is a faith that is contingent upon facts and evidence that lead to that truth. By the same token, I do not not believe in the man in the moon or Big Foot or Santa, because I have no evidence.

I have no objection to anyone claiming that their god is true, but that does obligate me to state that mine is NOT. Tolerance of other beliefs does not mean that I DENY the truth of CHRIST or suspend all logic and claim that competing truth claims are true. That is impossible. If something is true, it is true to ALL or it is NOT TRUE. And a persons perspective has nothing to do with reality.

I am very tolerant of other beliefs, even opposing beliefs, but I will NOT deny the truth of mine in order accommodate theirs and I don't understand why Christians are expected to do so.

And another excellent post!
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/03/08 01:56 PM
Quote
But this position is different from what you said earlier about "irrefutable proof."

actually, it is 100% consistent with what I stated. What I see as a fact/truth is in part based on the Lord calling me and revealing His truth to me...these things that are fact to me would not be able to be proven in a court of law or scientifically. Personally because of God's still small voice in me, I am left with no doubt. Others...those that want irrefutable proof...want to be able to stick their fingers in his wounds and have a more verifiable record of events. Until the Lord calls them, they will not KNOW Him based on any proof....for in my eyes, it does not exist. Obviously, you see things differently. I am okay with that.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/03/08 04:29 PM
Quote
But this position is different from what you said earlier about "irrefutable proof."

___________________________________________________________________

actually, it is 100% consistent with what I stated.

Okay, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. It sounded as though you were saying that "irrefutable proof" didn't exist at all.


What I see as a fact/truth is in part based on the Lord calling me and revealing His truth to me

I wholeheartedly agree with this. It is consistent with "by grace you have been saved, not of works, lest any man should boast.


...these things that are fact to me would not be able to be proven in a court of law or scientifically.

"Scientifically," no. It is not possible to "recreate in the lab" the resurrection of Jesus.

"in a court of law," that is where we might have a difference of opinion because the "standard" is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." An "unreasonable doubt" is not the standard, and MANY cases are "proven" by such things as eyewitness testimony, especially when there are more than 1 eyewitness, all relating the same observation of events that happened before their very eyes.


Personally because of God's still small voice in me, I am left with no doubt.

Understood.


Others...those that want irrefutable proof...want to be able to stick their fingers in his wounds and have a more verifiable record of events.

Also understood. It is also why I believe God gave us Thomas, the "original 'I'm from Missouri, show me'" sort of person.


Until the Lord calls them, they will not KNOW Him based on any proof....for in my eyes, it does not exist.

You are correct, they will not know Him. But the proof exists, it is the resurrection. Anyone not accepting the proof is not the same thing as the proof not existing. It's sort of like gravity...a sincere belief that gravity does not exist for "me" does not negate the fact that gravity DOES exist. Using the "example" of someone who denies the existence of gravity and someone who denies that Jesus IS who He says He is, when the "unbeliever" in the "proofs" that they exist for everyone steps off the roof of the skyscraper...they will both have THEIR "final proof" when they die. In other words, HIS truth meets "our" truth at the interface of the earth.

The "court reporter records," if you will, are the Scriptures. A "read back" of the record gives the precise testimony of the individual "on trial" in this court, as well as the testimony of the eyewitnesses AND the opponents to Jesus.


Obviously, you see things differently. I am okay with that. As I am okay with how you see things for yourself.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/03/08 10:07 PM
Quote
it is the resurrection.

there is NO proof of the resurrection that would withstand a courtroom standard of proof.

You may feel differently, but IMHO, it is by faith that I believe that Christ rose from the dead...not because there exists any verifiable proof.

Christian's have gotten into this mindset that they need to prove that their beliefs are correct. Let's argue carbon dating, dinosaurs...etc. Baloney. Every single thing that a learned Christian can come up with as proof...somebody equally as smart and learned can counter with just as convincing an argument. Seriously...who cares. I don't really give a hoot that you think there exists proof of the resurrection. Go on believing that all you want...and when you get countered by people a lot smarter than you...you have lost the ability to discuss faith and are now in a scientific or historical discussion that will only contribute to divisiveness and doubt.

Speak to people about your faith and why you believe...show them an example they can latch on to and then you will be living a life that shows the proof of God's love. get all high and mighty...chest thumping...a whole lot of statements that contribute to nothing more than debate....and guess what...people will tune you out. I have seen it right here on these boards...and I have seen it IRL. Then the misuse of gifts that God has given you stop you from having fellowship with other believers because of your differences....it results in a fractured church...it results in nothing more than intellectual masturbation that pushes the gift of grace aside.

I am happy to live by faith in my Lord. The day I start feeling that I need to provide proof of His existence...beyond a sunset...beyond the birth of a child...beyond the glory that He lays out every single day...well, that is the day I surrender to the world.

Rant done.

Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/03/08 11:10 PM
The empty tomb seems to be somewhat irrefutable proof. (Tomb was guarded by Roman Soldiers)

Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days to 100 people - that would also seem to be fairly convincing proof that would stand up in a court of law.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/03/08 11:27 PM
and the names of the soldiers are...
their sworn testimony is ...
their credibility is...
the record keeping is....
the guarding of the tomb was supervised by...
the 100 people (actually I thought it was 400) are...
their testimony is...
the record keeping of their testimony is...
cross examination is...
and so on and so on.

I am not going to defend the rejection of these beliefs...but not a single one of them would hold up in court.
Posted By: TogetherAlone Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 12:26 AM
Quote
The empty tomb seems to be somewhat irrefutable proof. (Tomb was guarded by Roman Soldiers)

But the accounts of this are thought to have been written by people long after the event, ie not first-hand witnesses? Therefore hearsay, and of doubtful value in a court-system trial. There could be all sorts of alternative explanations. We don't have much evidence from the Roman side, after all, do we?

Quote
Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days to 100 people - that would also seem to be fairly convincing proof that would stand up in a court of law.

See above. Also, even at the time, could have argued that the desire of the witnesses to 'see' Jesus was so great as to generate hallucinations that they had. Mass hysteria is still implicated in some medical situations today. People still think they see Elvis, and a surprising proportion of Americans genuinely believe they've been abducted by aliens.

Christianity is about a leap of faith. Not one of us was there in 33AD. There is no proof.

TA

Posted By: Dufresne Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 12:52 AM
Let's bring this back on topic please. Thanks.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 12:54 AM
gladly. (TA..I don't know what the edited comments were, but please do not take my "gladly" to be directed at you in any way. I just find these threads that have people defending their religion to be a bit useless...you have done or said nothing to bother me).
Posted By: TogetherAlone Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 01:07 AM
****edit****
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 11:09 AM
**EDIT**
Posted By: TogetherAlone Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 11:48 AM
**EDIT**

Please email the mod directly with your concerns.

Thanks, Revera

Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 12:03 PM
Originally Posted by medc
it's not political correctness that I am professing...it is respect. I respect those that deserve it and have no problem showing contempt for those that do not.

I've read the books Mrs. W...probably more than most. Every single one of them is full of assumptions that while I agree with the authors...are very easy to pick apart. It is not by science that we are called...but by faith.

It still comes down to faith and the Lord calling those to Him. I can stand for Christ without being rude to other people and their beliefs. Muslims also feel there is but one truth. God has afforded people free will to be subject to His laws here on Earth.

And while my views may puzzle some people...they are consistent with scripture and are a reflection of what I have learned in my walk. I believe there is one true God. Others feel differently. When He calls them, they will understand as I do...it will not be because of my chest thumping.


St. Francis of Assisi said something you would probably agree with.

"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 12:25 PM

Quote
from medc:
there is NO proof of the resurrection that would withstand a courtroom standard of proof.

You may feel differently, but IMHO, it is by faith that I believe that Christ rose from the dead...not because there exists any verifiable proof.

Christian's have gotten into this mindset that they need to prove that their beliefs are correct. Let's argue carbon dating, dinosaurs...etc. Baloney. Every single thing that a learned Christian can come up with as proof...somebody equally as smart and learned can counter with just as convincing an argument. Seriously...who cares. I don't really give a hoot that you think there exists proof of the resurrection. Go on believing that all you want...and when you get countered by people a lot smarter than you...you have lost the ability to discuss faith and are now in a scientific or historical discussion that will only contribute to divisiveness and doubt.

Speak to people about your faith and why you believe...show them an example they can latch on to and then you will be living a life that shows the proof of God's love. get all high and mighty...chest thumping...a whole lot of statements that contribute to nothing more than debate....and guess what...people will tune you out. I have seen it right here on these boards...and I have seen it IRL. Then the misuse of gifts that God has given you stop you from having fellowship with other believers because of your differences....it results in a fractured church...it results in nothing more than intellectual masturbation that pushes the gift of grace aside.

I am happy to live by faith in my Lord. The day I start feeling that I need to provide proof of His existence...beyond a sunset...beyond the birth of a child...beyond the glory that He lays out every single day...well, that is the day I surrender to the world.

Rant done.
Quote
from medc:
and the names of the soldiers are...
their sworn testimony is ...
their credibility is...
the record keeping is....
the guarding of the tomb was supervised by...
the 100 people (actually I thought it was 400) are...
their testimony is...
the record keeping of their testimony is...
cross examination is...
and so on and so on.

I am not going to defend the rejection of these beliefs...but not a single one of them would hold up in court.
Quote
Nor should you. I don't think anyone suggests you should deny that...just as I will not suggest that a Muslim deny theirs. God is sovereign and will call those to His table as He sees fit.

Quote:
Competing truth claims cannot possibly both be true.


I agree 100%. That doesn't mean that others don't feel the same way regarding their "truths." Until there is irrefutable proof, it will all be a matter of faith and not fact.


MEDC, I think I am beginning to understand your position on this better, but I thought it best to tell you what I think I understand and let you confirm, reject, or amend that understanding, so as to not run the risk of "putting words into your mouth."

You said, "God is sovereign and will call those to His table as He sees fit."
I agree with this as it is clearly taught in Scripture, it is God who initiates bringing someone to Christ, we don't "choose to find Christ on our own."

"just as I will not suggest that a Muslim deny theirs."
There is a marked difference between "demanding" someone "deny" their belief (religious system of any kind, including "no religion") and "suggesting" there are valid reasons to consider receiving Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

I don't think anyone is "demanding" that someone change their faith, unless you are talking about God Himself who has clearly stated that there IS only one way, HIS way, TO receive forgiveness of sins and to be reconciled to Him for all eternity.
The issue of NOT "suggesting" to anyone that Jesus, not any other "faith system," is the ONLY correct and acceptable "way" to God is, within "Christian belief systems," what is commonly referred to as "HyperCalvinism."

The "problem" with HyperCalvinism is that it carries with it a refusal to obey the Great Commission given BY God the Son TO all believers. It "eliminates" all missions work and ANY attempt to "convince" someone that Jesus Christ is real and that the "claims" about Him are true.

God does not demand that WE convert anyone. God does not tell us to "demand" that others change their belief system TO a belief in Jesus Christ.

With respect to the "requirement" of "irrefutable proof" that you raised, and upon which you are basing your argument that there IS no proof that "cannot" be refuted, it may be that the "standard" you are using for "proof" is a bit "high" for establishing what TRUTH is. The issue is not that TRUTH is "proven," though it has been. The issue as you rightly point out is the ACCEPTANCE or REJECTION of that truth by individuals who have the "God-given" capacity to CHOOSE whether or not they happen to believe in Christ, or even in the existence of God for that matter.

When you say:
"and the names of the soldiers are...
their sworn testimony is ...
their credibility is...
the record keeping is....
the guarding of the tomb was supervised by...
the 100 people (actually I thought it was 400) are...
their testimony is...
the record keeping of their testimony is...
cross examination is...
and so on and so on. "

You are raising questions, not providing proof that what was recorded is FALSE.

Without going into a long dissertation of answering each of those questions, let me simply suggest that a good reference for discussion of those sorts of questions would be Josh McDowell's book, Evidence That Demands A Verdict.

"Prove to me that God exists" is the same sort of issue. "Prove to me that LOVE exists and is true" is the same sort of issue. What it seems as though you are arguing for in this "irrefutable proof" issue is that someone "bottle up a quart of LOVE, set in on the table, as PHYSICAL, "before MY very eyes proof" that I can touch and examine" sort of proof. "Prove to me" that monogamous, faithful, marriage between one man and one woman IS the "only true and right" definition of, an "acceptable" and "real" marriage. That sort of "truth" is what is "argued" here on MB all the time and even IS the basis for the existence of MB. Are the no other 'true marriages' that would disagree with the "Truth" as presented on MB? On what "irrefutable proof" DOES one "suggest" to anyone else that adultery is wrong, that 'affairages' are wrong, that 'swinging' is wrong. How "dare" anyone on MB "suggest," let alone "demand" that faithfulness to a marriage partner IS the only true course and should be embraced by anyone who wants to believe that "waywardness" is equally alright.

Even (as I believe as a Christian) as Satan and the fallen angels KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt WHO Jesus Christ is, they still do NOT ACCEPT that truth for themselves. They CHOOSE not to. They didn't before the "Fall of Mankind," they didn't when Jesus walked the earth, and they don't today.

But the "proof" is right there today, as it was then. It is Jesus hanging on a Cross. It is Jesus dying and paying the full penalty of God's wrath against sin FOR all who WILL accept Him as being TRUTH. It is the empty tomb that His opponents sought so vigorously to prevent from occurring. It is the physical witness of many (actually more than the 400 you mentioned). It is the faithful recording of HISTORY, of historical events AS THEY HAPPENED.

To "deny" the "proof" of history would be to deny ANYTHING that cannot be "bottled" and presented for physical examination TODAY. Julius Caesar did not exist. Napoleon did not exist. Abraham Lincoln did not exist. Martin Luther King did not exist.

I am of the opinion that any of those people could be "proven" to have existed and to have done what others claim they did, in a court of law.

I am also of the opinion that the existence of Jesus Christ and what He did while here on Earth could also be "proven" in a court of law. PROVING the facts, is relatively easy. ACCEPTING the facts is a different issue altogetherā€¦and that IS where FAITH comes in.

God bless.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 01:36 PM
Quote
St. Francis of Assisi said something you would probably agree with.

"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."

Very much so. I have that saying hanging in my house and have used it here on these boards as well.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 01:52 PM
Quote
What it seems as though you are arguing for in this "irrefutable proof" issue is that someone "bottle up a quart of LOVE, set in on the table, as PHYSICAL, "before MY very eyes proof" that I can touch and examine" sort of proof. "Prove to me" that monogamous, faithful, marriage between one man and one woman IS the "only true and right" definition of, an "acceptable" and "real" marriage.

nope...if this is your take on my position, I fear you will never understand me. I am not arguing for any proof..as i said...I don't need it.

As I said before, I have read the books. I have also read the retorts. They continue to cause nothing but division.

I happily stand by my posts on this thread and all the thoughts/feelings that they convey.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 02:14 PM
Quote
nope...if this is your take on my position, I fear you will never understand me. I am not arguing for any proof..as i said...I don't need it.

Then, if this is your understanding of what I've been saying, I equally fear you will never understand me either.

What I "understand" is that FOR YOU, personally, YOU don't need any "proof" for yourself. As I said previously, I'm okay with that.

But you extended that to include others who might want to hear of "proof" so that they can consider the issue, evaluate the "proofs," and reach a decision for THEMSELVES. You have, in the past, extended that to an "acceptance" (often called 'tolerance' of BELIEFS, not of individuals as we are all sinners), that are directly contrary to what God has revealed to us as HIS position regarding Jesus Christ.

You extended that personal opinion to others who DO think it's important to DEFINE terms when speaking about Jesus in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding of WHAT IS and what is NOT believed about Jesus, as the Bible has revealed it and not based on opinions that might be contrary to the revealed Word of God.

Again, as I said, you are entitled to your opinion, and I'm fine with you holding that opinion. But it is also my opinion that I, or anyone else, does not have to "accept and embrace" your opinion or my opinion, but that we are all free to state them and give reasons for what we believe and why we believe it.

Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 02:16 PM

*******
Posted By: committedandlovi Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 02:31 PM
Quote
I am also of the opinion that the existence of Jesus Christ and what He did while here on Earth could also be "proven" in a court of law. PROVING the facts, is relatively easy. ACCEPTING the facts is a different issue altogetherā€¦and that IS where FAITH comes in

With what as the proof....the Bible?

Then any religion at all could prove THEIR teaching with their own 'bible' ...(notice not capitalized)

Our entire Christian concept is based on "faith".

Faith meaning : belief that is not based on proof:

It isn't "faith" if you have proof.

My Grandfather and Father were both ministers. One of the first words that we learned in Sunday School was Faith.

He read us the stories in the Bible. He laid it out for us to clearly understand so that we could make our own path to Christ.

Parts of the Bible told the story....parts of the Bible provided our road map, if you will.

Since the Bible we used was King James Version, we had to trust that King James (the men that put it to print) got it right in their interpretations. We needed faith...or all was lost.

" For by grace are ye saved through FAITH "

If we had proof there would be no need for faith.

God doesn't give us proof.

He tells us to use faith...which is the greatest thing that a person can have in something or someone.

Faith...no proof necessary.

Proof is what man uses to try and convince another man that this way is the right way.

God doesn't need to prove anything to us.

He doesn't want us to come to him based on proof.

He wants us to place our FAITH in him.

What a wonderful gift we give TO him...our faith IN him and his promise to us.

I never had to be convinced because of any proof. I didn't need proof. God doesn't want us to come to him if we base it on proof. He wants us to come to him because of FAITH.

He will only accept us if we have FAITH.

Mind you..this is only MY opinion.

I don't care to have it dissected and the attempts to tear it down won't work on me.

I don't NEED...nor do I want....PROOF. Proof serves me no good. I have my FAITH...that is ALL that is expected, required, and needed to satisfy God.

IMHO
committed

ETA....oops...I see that some Moderator intervention occurred while I was composing this. Pardon the intrusion if my comments are not within TOS. I do apologize

Posted By: TogetherAlone Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 02:45 PM
Quote
**EDIT**

Please email the mod directly with your concerns.

Thanks, Revera



Edited by Revera (08/04/08 02:30 PM)

I have emailed both yourself and Dufresne.

TA

Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 02:49 PM
Quote
With what as the proof....the Bible?

committedandlovi - Yes, as with ANY historical document that faithfully records events.

That is not the same thing as "accepting by faith" what the proof is.

Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 03:22 PM
Quote
I don't care to have it dissected and the attempts to tear it down won't work on me.

I don't NEED...nor do I want....PROOF. Proof serves me no good. I have my FAITH...that is ALL that is expected, required, and needed to satisfy God.

committedandlovi - no intention of dissecting or tearing down your belief, nor is there any intention of telling you that you have believe anything you don't want to believe.

All I will do for any who might be interested and/or reading this thread is to state what the Word of God says about it:


"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31, emphasis added)

"But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." (Romans 10:16-17, emphasis added)

I fully respect and agree with your Grandfather and your Father, who I am fairly certain preached the Word, from the Bible, so that the truth about Jesus Christ could be made known. FAITH to accept that truth and to accept Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior is what is needed, not just "mere assent" to the truthfulness of the "proof" that is presented.


Quote
Since the Bible we used was King James Version, we had to trust that King James (the men that put it to print) got it right in their interpretations. We needed faith...or all was lost.

Perhaps in the past this "trusting" of the translation was needed, but there have been many archaelogical discoveries in recent past that have provided a means by which to "test" the faithfulness and accuracy of the translations we have today, including the KJV. Since we now have documents very very near to the dates of the actual autographs, we have "proof" of the meticulous care with which the Bible documents were both copied and translated. Again, the "fact" of the accuracy of the "documents" is not an issue of faith. Believing what the documents teaches IS an issue of faith.


Quote
God doesn't need to prove anything to us.

He doesn't want us to come to him based on proof.

He wants us to place our FAITH in him.

This is very true. But God also does not preclude the use of "proof" to bring some people to Him either. If that were not so, He would never have told Thomas to touch Him. He would never have eaten food with His disciples to prove to them that he was not a "ghost" or some "imagination or hallucination."

God has, in my humble opinion, supernaturally preserved the Scriptures AS the "proof source" for all mankind. Whether or not mankind chooses to accept the proofs recorded in the Scriptures is up to each individual. God had provide throughout Scripture HIS "proofs" of who He is and who Jesus Christ is. God, through the written testimony of the Scriptures, tells us precisely WHO Jesus Christ is and WHY He existed in incarnate form on the earth. He asks us to receive that proof individually and personally, through faith, not as a mere acknowledgment of the real existence of Jesus Christ as an "historical person" who simply DID live and walk the earth some 2000 years ago.


God bless.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 03:41 PM
Originally Posted by committedandlovi
Quote
I am also of the opinion that the existence of Jesus Christ and what He did while here on Earth could also be "proven" in a court of law. PROVING the facts, is relatively easy. ACCEPTING the facts is a different issue altogetherā€¦and that IS where FAITH comes in

With what as the proof....the Bible?

Then any religion at all could prove THEIR teaching with their own 'bible' ...(notice not capitalized)

Our entire Christian concept is based on "faith".

Faith meaning : belief that is not based on proof:

It isn't "faith" if you have proof.

My Grandfather and Father were both ministers. One of the first words that we learned in Sunday School was Faith.

He read us the stories in the Bible. He laid it out for us to clearly understand so that we could make our own path to Christ.

Parts of the Bible told the story....parts of the Bible provided our road map, if you will.

Since the Bible we used was King James Version, we had to trust that King James (the men that put it to print) got it right in their interpretations. We needed faith...or all was lost.

" For by grace are ye saved through FAITH "

If we had proof there would be no need for faith.

God doesn't give us proof.

He tells us to use faith...which is the greatest thing that a person can have in something or someone.

Faith...no proof necessary.

Proof is what man uses to try and convince another man that this way is the right way.

God doesn't need to prove anything to us.

He doesn't want us to come to him based on proof.

He wants us to place our FAITH in him.

What a wonderful gift we give TO him...our faith IN him and his promise to us.

I never had to be convinced because of any proof. I didn't need proof. God doesn't want us to come to him if we base it on proof. He wants us to come to him because of FAITH.

He will only accept us if we have FAITH.

Mind you..this is only MY opinion.

I don't care to have it dissected and the attempts to tear it down won't work on me.

I don't NEED...nor do I want....PROOF. Proof serves me no good. I have my FAITH...that is ALL that is expected, required, and needed to satisfy God.

IMHO
committed

ETA....oops...I see that some Moderator intervention occurred while I was composing this. Pardon the intrusion if my comments are not within TOS. I do apologize


exactly
Posted By: iam Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 03:50 PM
If people take a step toward God because of Lee Strobel, great.

That won't keep them there.

Their faith will.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 06:49 PM
I agree 100%. My only concern with books like those is that very learned people disagree with much of the books and can make a very convincing argument against these authors/experts.
That is why I see these discussions regarding proof as basically fruitless. One expert lines up against another (not that Stroble is an expert) and before long, the true message of grace, salvation and faith are lost amongst the three ring circus of proof.

Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 10:50 PM
medc:

I have 2 say, I am IMPRESSED! You have very eloquently characterized the difference between proof and faith in your posts above. I agree with most of it, even though I would be considered by most here, an atheist (I prefer my made-up term, atheologist, as it describes my perspective on this whole experience better than the former term).

Truthfully, there is no "proof" of Jesus' very existence outside the Bible, and while the Bible can certainly be considered a history text of sorts, verification of the ac2ality of the events described therein by simply referring 2 it is like saying "If you don't believe me, just ask me and I'll tell you". Independent evidence, either via other historic documents or archaeological corroboration, would be helpful. Particularly for those interested in the history who may not believe that the Bible is an unbiased account of it.

But religion is faith-based and deals with feelings and spiri2al matters, not equations describing the physical universe or events that led 2 the sinking of the Titanic. Faith doesn't require proof 2 be real 2 the faithful. And it doesn't have 2 be at odds with efforts 2 understand the physical universe and events that happen within it.

Quote
it's not political correctness that I am professing...it is respect. I respect those that deserve it and have no problem showing contempt for those that do not.

I agree. For forums like this 2 be really productive and helpful 2 those dealing with the grodyness that is infidelity (from either side), respect is paramount. But I find it a little sad that you feel the need 2 show contempt for people you don't feel "deserve" your respect. Your life and your call, though.

Personally, I prefer 2 go forward with the perspective that we're all down here trying 2 figure our [censored] out. Some of us may progress faster, or more efficiently, than others. And we all have somewhat different lessons 2 learn. But it's not for me 2 say what the specifics of another person's responses 2 these lessons ought 2 be.

There's just 2 much nifty stuff 2 see and do!

-ol' 2long
Posted By: ccbis Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/04/08 11:57 PM
Coincidence???

Today I received the book ordered last month at Amazon: The Resurrection of the Son of God. It's 740 pages and I decided to read it after listening to several conferences by the New Testament scholar Bishop N.T Wright.

If anyone is interested, one of his lectures on The Resurrection is at: http://seaver.pepperdine.edu/dean/lectureseries/pages/20050111.htm

He has convinced me that it IS a historical truth.

Posted By: mimi_here Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/05/08 12:47 AM
OT-TJ: How you been, CC? I just luv ya..you are always adding something intriguing to my life. Get in touch with me...

Excuse me...Carry on...
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/05/08 02:58 AM
Quote
But religion is faith-based and deals with feelings and spiri2al matters, not equations describing the physical universe or events that led 2 the sinking of the Titanic.

Hi 2long. Yes religion is "faith-based." That doesn't mean anything different than atheists or atheiologists (as you prefer) "believing" there is no God based on "feelings" and their own idea of "spiritual matters." Neither is based on equations or events that are "reproducable and verifiable" in the laboratory.



Quote
Faith doesn't require proof 2 be real 2 the faithful. And it doesn't have 2 be at odds with efforts 2 understand the physical universe and events that happen within it.

You are also correct in saying [i]""Faith doesn't require proof 2 be real 2 the faithful." Simply "believing" doesn't make any religion more true than any other religion, or atheism for that matter.

"Sincere belief" does NOT equal "TRUE" unless the object of that belief is, in fact, true.

What determines what is TRUE? I would submit that the evidence that supports the "claims" of a given faith and the direct revelations to us by the ONE who IS truth, who is the Creator and sustainer of the universe, is correct and true. I call that person God.

For an atheist, there exists no God, therefore ANY religious belief other than atheism is irrelevant since they have arrived at the "conclusion" or "feeling" that there is no God and, therefore, no religion that claims any "higher power" is right. Yet atheists have no proof that God does not exist either and base their "belief" on their own feeling and opinion.

Basing a "belief" solely upon "feelings" is a very risky thing to do too, imho. Even Moses faced this fact when God tasked him with leading the people of Israel out of Egypt. When he asked God for a way to prove to the people of Israel that he was, in fact, sent by God for a specific task, God responded and gave Moses a "proof" for the Israelites.

This "feeling only" issue is, imho, a very risky way to determine the "truth" of any religion. It leads to "blind faith" and accusations that are commonly made of the sort like "Christians check their brains at the door." Besides, most of us around MB know just how risky "blind faith" in anything is.




Quote
Truthfully, there is no "proof" of Jesus' very existence outside the Bible, and while the Bible can certainly be considered a history text of sorts, verification of the ac2ality of the events described therein by simply referring 2 it is like saying "If you don't believe me, just ask me and I'll tell you". Independent evidence, either via other historic documents or archaeological corroboration, would be helpful. Particularly for those interested in the history who may not believe that the Bible is an unbiased account of it.

Truthfully, I can't figure out if your "truthfully" statement is something you sincerely believe, something you "just say," something you are really ignorant of, or something you are deliberately saying while knowing that proof of the "outside" sort you are referring to DOES exist.

Regardless, there is "external" proof of Jesus's existence. Jesus is an "historical figure" placed in history. But beside that, to "discount" or "reject" the written record of Him as recorded in the Bible is to NOT be faithful to Textual Criticism and Historical Criticism as applied to all written works. That is a separate issue, as MEDC has stated, from "accepting and believing" in Jesus Christ as the Savior that was promised by God throughout the Old Testament.

Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/05/08 05:27 AM
FH:

IMHO, you completely missed my point, completely misinterpreted and misunders2d what I said.

End of discussion.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/05/08 01:44 PM
Quote
most of us around MB know just how risky "blind faith" in anything is.

well, actually "blind faith" is, IMO, exactly what Jesus considered to be a wonderful this when He said..

Quote
"Because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/05/08 04:33 PM
Quote
FH:

IMHO, you completely missed my point, completely misinterpreted and misunders2d what I said.

End of discussion.

-ol' 2long

Okay. No one has to participate in any discussion they don't want to.

It seemed to me that you chose to participate when you offered up your opinion on the subject, but now you try to accuse me of "completely missing your point." Perhaps I did, but it seemed rather clear and straightforward when you opined:
Quote
Personally, I prefer 2 go forward with the perspective that we're all down here trying 2 figure our [censored] out. Some of us may progress faster, or more efficiently, than others. And we all have somewhat different lessons 2 learn. But it's not for me 2 say what the specifics of another person's responses 2 these lessons ought 2 be.

It seemed rather clear from this statement that you were arguing "relativism," determined by each individual, and that there is no "objective truth" by which any choice is made." "Figuring this stuff out" and "some of us may progress faster, or more efficiently than others" is part of the learning process. But once again, without an "objective standard of truth" by which to "figure things out" and/or "progress" DOES leave it up to the individual to determine what is "true" for themselves with nothing to gauge their choice against in evaluating if the direction they are "progressing" is in a "right direction" or in a "wrong direction."

If that was not the point that you were making, then I suppose I did "miss your point."

However, in the realm of "it's all relative," there is an inherent problem that relativists need to answer for themselves. IF all things are relative and can be whatever any individual wants to it beā€¦..If you or I choose to believe that all things are NOT relativeā€¦we cannot be wrong in holding that belief, by the application of the relativists own point of view.


You also seemed to clearly state your opinion that "Truthfully, there is no "proof" of Jesus' very existence outside the Bible." There didn't seem to be much room for misunderstanding what you were saying and that's what I said what I said as MY opinion. In addition, there is "proof" of Jesus' very existence "outside of the Bible" and that was my point. Once again, the FACT that Jesus existed is NOT argued by many today because the evidence is available that He did exist. That is NOT the same thing as saying Jesus IS the Messiah and our Lord and Savior, of proving as in a laboratory setting, the reproducibility of Him and His miracles. Those ARE matters of faith, based upon the evidence that supports the claims by, and about, Him.



Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/05/08 04:38 PM

Quote
well, actually "blind faith" is, IMO, exactly what Jesus considered to be a wonderful this when He said..
Quote:
"Because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

Maybe we are just talking about a difference in "defining terms" here, medc.

"Blind Faith" can be given to anything that anyone wants to give it to. The same as with "blind trust."

Jesus was speaking, obviously, to Thomas, who needed to touch the very physical person of Jesus for himself.

Without question, once Jesus ascended into heaven, THAT particular "option" would no longer exist and any subsequent person coming to a faith in Jesus would necessarily have to come there by way of the testimony of the those who WERE witnesses to the truth.

That, in large part, is why the New Testament was written, as John pointed out for all of us who were to "come after." The New Testament was written to provide documentary proof of what happened for the time when the Apostles would no longer be around. Given that there was no such thing as voice recording or video recording "options" available "back then," they did have the written form of communication available and used it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to "codify" the truth, the events that "proved" Jesus' claims to BE the Messiah. They provided the written testimony as a "type" of "court record" of what actually took place.

Without the written Word, or the proofs concerning Jesus contained with the pages of that Word, WHAT would anyone have to believe in, either by some sort of "blind faith," or based on accepting the truth of what was evidentiary in the testimony presented.

I suppose the really simple answer to "blind faith" as you are using Christ's statement in John 20:29 would be a question;

WHO would believe in Jesus Christ with no one to tell anyone about Him and WHY He IS the Messiah and the Savior of all who accept Him as their personal Lord and Savior?

If, for example, I wanted to "believe" that Julius Caesar or the Pope or any other human being WAS God incarnate, I could so believe based simply on "blind faith." But what evidence would there be to support such a belief other than "because I simply want to believe it?" Faith that is founded on truth IS NOT "blind faith." But without the Scripture, without the direct revelation FROM God TO us in His written word, what would have to form the basis of any belief in Jesus?

The FACT remains that Jesus Himself clearly held that the Scriptures, and the truths that they reveal to us, WERE God's words given by inspiration to the authors of the Scripture. Jesus USED that truth in answer to Satan when He was tempted. Without the Scripture, Jesus would not have been able to appeal to ā€¦ "it is written."

And the New Testament was written for the very same purpose, to provide truth to us, the evidence that supported the "claims" of Jesus to BE the Messiah, the incarnate Son of God, the one who created all that there is in the universe. In other words, the New Testament was written to provide "proof statements" of who Jesus was and is, and why we SHOULD place our faith in Him, and in Him alone.

That's not any different from when Joshua told the Israelites "choose ye this day whom ye will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Joshua was reminding the people of Israel, calling to remembrance if you will, ALL the "proofs" that God had provided to them up to that point in time. Many, if not all, of them were themselves eyewitnesses to what God had done for their nation up to that point, but KNOWLEDGE alone is "not enough." It DOES take, as you have said, a willing surrender TO God based upon the truths presented before each individual. It DOES take a recognition of our own sinful state and the NEED for a Savior. It DOES take a faith that not only affirms the truth of who Jesus is and what He did for us, but a faith that accepts Him as our own Lord and Savior even if we don't know "all the finer theological points" or all of what God has also told us as to how a believer should try to "conform their lives to Christ-likeness" as the model for how to "live out" our faith.

So it is not "blind faith," it would seem that Jesus was talking about. Rather, it was faith based upon testimony of others to the actual events that took place and the affirmations of who Jesus is through the use of miracles, culminating in the miracle of His resurrection.

God bless.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/05/08 04:48 PM
Quote
without the direct revelation FROM God TO us in His written word, what would have to form the basis of any belief in Jesus?

Faith is needed to believe this is the direct revelation from God. Otherwise, it could just be considered the greatest story ever told. Same thing with the Gospels. The words were not written for years after Christs death. The Bible was not formed for hundreds of years...most would NOT consider that to be an accurate accounting of fact. Jesus chose to appear to those close to him...he did not appear in the temple for all to see. Many would consider that to be a situation that is ripe for conspiracy.

Quote
But without the Scripture, without the direct revelation FROM God TO us in His written word, what would have to form the basis of any belief in Jesus?

Ah, there's the rub FH. I would suggest that reading God's word without His touch on your heart is nothing more than a intellectual escapade. Julius Caesar does not have the ability to reach into my heart and soul and call me to him. It is NOT Scripture that forms my basis for belief in Christ. Scripture can be argued against with a great deal of authority and intellect.
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/05/08 04:54 PM
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
Okay. No one has to participate in any discussion they don't want to.

No offense meant. I just don't think we'll accomplish anything by it.

Quote
It seemed rather clear from this statement that you were arguing "relativism," determined by each individual, and that there is no "objective truth" by which any choice is made."

Regarding things like morals and spiri2ality, yes. These things ARE relative, but not so individually-determined as you imply, IMO. More, a product of millions of years of human evolution and interaction resulting in the moral codes we live by 2day (more or less, depending on a variety of cultural and peer influences).


Quote
If that was not the point that you were making, then I suppose I did "miss your point."

Apparently not entirely. My apologies.

Quote
In addition, there is "proof" of Jesus' very existence "outside of the Bible" and that was my point.

No, there isn't (Josephus notwithstanding, as most historians believe that the mention of Jesus is anomalous and a later addition).

Quote
Once again, the FACT that Jesus existed is NOT argued by many today because the evidence is available that He did exist. That is NOT the same thing as saying Jesus IS the Messiah and our Lord and Savior, of proving as in a laboratory setting, the reproducibility of Him and His miracles. Those ARE matters of faith, based upon the evidence that supports the claims by, and about, Him.

Agreed. I'm not saying that Jesus didn't exist, just that the evidence for that is entirely within the Bible.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/05/08 05:09 PM
Quote
Ah, there's the rub FH. I would suggest that reading God's word without His touch on your heart is nothing more than a intellectual escapade.

Absolutely. I agree 100% with this statement, medc.

"Proof," though it exists and is available, does NOT have to be "accepted" as such by anyone who doesn't want to.

Does the acronym TULIP mean anything to you? If it does, it speaks to what you are saying here.

God bless.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/05/08 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
Quote
Ah, there's the rub FH. I would suggest that reading God's word without His touch on your heart is nothing more than a intellectual escapade.

Absolutely. I agree 100% with this statement, medc.

"Proof," though it exists and is available, does NOT have to be "accepted" as such by anyone who doesn't want to.

Does the acronym TULIP mean anything to you? If it does, it speaks to what you are saying here.

God bless.

Just so that we are on the same page...I do not believe that "proof" exists. I do believe that since faith is required that proof is not needed.

I could reference as "proof" text books...written by biased men...that show the Native Americans were treated fairly. Forgetting the genocide of 12 million natives here...well, I guess the story would be true.

Without faith, the Bible is nothing more than a story written a long, long time after the actual events. I do not see that as proof. Hence, the need for faith and a calling.

I am familiar with the acronym.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/05/08 05:25 PM
Quote
No offense meant. I just don't think we'll accomplish anything by it.

No offense taken, 2long. I thought you were offended by my response. You may be right that "we" won't accomplish anything, but that's no different that any discussion of divergent opinions IF the "objective" is to "convert" someone rather than to simply discuss the arguments and let anyone who wants to arrive at their own conclusions.


Quote
Regarding things like morals and spiri2ality, yes. These things ARE relative, but not so individually-determined as you imply, IMO. More, a product of millions of years of human evolution and interaction resulting in the moral codes we live by 2day (more or less, depending on a variety of cultural and peer influences).

I understand what you are saying, and obviously I also disagree with your conclusion because I reject "evolution" as the cause of how things "got here" and also how "morals" are arrived at.

Yes, people CAN and DO choose their own moral standards, but that does not mean that God's moral standards have not been given to us. All it means, from my perspective, is that sinful man WILL choose to act in ways that are "contrary" to God and His standards for human behavior.

This "resulting in the moral codes we live by 2day (more or less, depending on a variety of cultural and peer influences)" is precisely the "problem" in rejecting God's "moral codes" and substituting whatever we want to substitute in their place.

Again, the result is "moral relativism" wherein no one "can" say that anyone else's morals are "wrong," because the "absolute standard" has been removed and replaced with "personal wants and desires" and "different cultures" (cultural differenes) that are at "odds" with each other as to what IS "moral."


With respect to the "external evidences," I'll see if I can find some time to get into that a little. On the other hand, you are correct that the majority of evidence (but not all) IS contained in the Bible. But that doesn't change anything when it comes to "proof that a man known as Jesus existed." That FACT is independent of any claims of diety or Messiahship. That fact alone is merely an issue of history, as recorded in a historical document.

Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/05/08 05:41 PM
Quote
Just so that we are on the same page...I do not believe that "proof" exists. I do believe that since faith is required that proof is not needed.

I understand what you are saying here.


Quote
I could reference as "proof" text books...written by biased men...that show the Native Americans were treated fairly. Forgetting the genocide of 12 million natives here...well, I guess the story would be true.

What genocide? What proof is there that was any genocide?

That's the same question when applied to Jesus.


Quote
Without faith, the Bible is nothing more than a story written a long, long time after the actual events. I do not see that as proof. Hence, the need for faith and a calling.


Again, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. The New Testament was "completed" within some 70-100 years of Jesus' presence on Earth, by those who were eyewitnesses and/or intimately aware of the details from their close association with the Apostles. That's not a "long, long time after the actual events," though.

But you are right that the Bible is "nothing more" than another book without the acceptance of Jesus Christ. But as a source of "proof statements," they remain "proof" regardless of personal opinion.

Let me try explain this another way. Today, some 70 years after the fact, there are many "proofs" in existance of the holocaust as being REAL, and the events surrounding the holocaust to be real. Yet that does not stop some people from rejecting the truth and the proof that the holocaust really did happen and was not just "some story" or some "imaginary happenings" in order to benefit some particular group of people.

People can, and do, reject Truth all the time, regardless of all the "proof" in the world. And for humans, that began with Adam and Eve rejecting God's truth in favor of Satan's "truth," the appeal to their pride.



Quote
I am familiar with the acronym.

I asked because what you are saying seems to be in accord with that acronym and the statements related to the letters.

God bless.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/05/08 05:51 PM
Quote
That's not a "long, long time after the actual events," though.

it isn't? could you imagine using it as "proof" in a courtroom? I have been in courtrooms and let me tell you...that would be laughed out of the building.


Quote
What genocide? What proof is there that was any genocide?

That's the same question when applied to Jesus.

you're kidding right?

People can reject that the Earth is millions of years old too. I would say that the "proof" of that is a heck of a lot more convincing than anything in the Bible. Without His calling me...I would believe as 2long and some others do.

My heart added into the equation allows me to believe. Using only my intellect, I cannot wrap my head around the suffering in the world...the murderous history of Christianity...and a lot of other things. The Lord called me...I feel blessed because of that and pray that others open their hearts...NOT THEIR MINDS...and be open to His still, small voice.
Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 03:14 AM
Originally Posted by medc
My heart added into the equation allows me to believe. Using only my intellect, I cannot wrap my head around the suffering in the world...the murderous history of Christianity...and a lot of other things. The Lord called me...I feel blessed because of that and pray that others open their hearts...NOT THEIR MINDS...and be open to His still, small voice.

If my beliefe in God offends my mind and my intellect I would not believe in God.

Good grief. That is a pretty odd belief system MEDC.

Next you'll be telling us we should check our brains at the door of the church before we enter. That really is some convoluted thinking.
Posted By: Marshmallow Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 06:01 AM
Quote
I feel blessed because of that and pray that others open their hearts...NOT THEIR MINDS...and be open to His still, small voice.


Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
Posted By: Greengables Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 11:04 AM
I think what medoc's saying is logic alone will not allow one to believe in God. It's debatable whether logic alone would have allowed early man to believe in nature gods. However, people now have a better understanding of how this physical world works.

Belief doesn't reside in the intellect. It resides in the soul and in the gut, and possibly in the heart.

But once you believe in God, it's easy to love him with all your mind. The mind marvels at the the Divine Being, and may even do marvel at the idea of a Divine Being if the beleif isn't there. But once it is there, the mind really can focus on the enormity of greatness. It's overpowering and ecstatic.

On the other side of the ring is Satan. There is no proof Satan exists, but sometimes, we know in our gut that some evil this way comes, and we believe. But, we don't love Satan with our mind. Intellectually, no one sets out saying "Yeah, I want to follow Satan to the gates of Hell. That sounds like a brilliant idea." Unfortunately, some people's hearts get corrupted by excessive love of the impure, and they unwittingly tread the path to annihilation.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 11:17 AM
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
Quote
I feel blessed because of that and pray that others open their hearts...NOT THEIR MINDS...and be open to His still, small voice.


Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

and your point is what. Since God has touched my heart, I AM able to love him with my mind. Without that touch...my heart would not allow me to see His truth. The Lord said this to be true in the quote that you posted. He repeatedly used the word "and" which suggests that NONE of them stand alone...and funny how he put HEART first.


http://www.royallaw.org/faq_bible_believe.html
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 11:20 AM
your post makes zero sense BK. I NEVER said my belief in God offends my mind. Read the quote again. I said using ONLY my intellect would cause a problem. ONLY.

My thinking is right on. Your ability to read what I actually wrote (and not adding your own assumptions) is what caused your convoluted response.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 11:21 AM
Quote
I think what medoc's saying is logic alone will not allow one to believe in God. It's debatable whether logic alone would have allowed early man to believe in nature gods. However, people now have a better understanding of how this physical world works.

Belief doesn't reside in the intellect. It resides in the soul and in the gut, and possibly in the heart.

But once you believe in God, it's easy to love him with all your mind. The mind marvels at the the Divine Being, and may even do marvel at the idea of a Divine Being if the beleif isn't there. But once it is there, the mind really can focus on the enormity of greatness. It's overpowering and ecstatic.

Exactly. Thank you for taking the time to read what I actually wrote.
Posted By: Greengables Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 11:32 AM
On a tangent, can I write Hades? And if I substitute Hades for H*ll will people understand? Just imagine if I tried to post Paradise Lost here!
Posted By: Marshmallow Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 01:27 PM
Quote
and your point is what.

When you said that you pray that others open their hearts...NOT THEIR MINDS...and be open to His still, small voice, it seemed to me as though you were excluding the importance of our minds in coming to the Lord.

The Lord says, "Come now, and let us REASON together..."

He appeals to our intellect through the written Word... "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God."









Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 02:41 PM
Quote
When you said that you pray that others open their hearts...NOT THEIR MINDS...and be open to His still, small voice, it seemed to me as though you were excluding the importance of our minds in coming to the Lord.

not at all. I pray for their heart to be opened because without that, a person cannot possibly see God's truth. The mind will follow.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 03:46 PM
Originally Posted by medc
Quote
When you said that you pray that others open their hearts...NOT THEIR MINDS...and be open to His still, small voice, it seemed to me as though you were excluding the importance of our minds in coming to the Lord.

not at all. I pray for their heart to be opened because without that, a person cannot possibly see God's truth. The mind will follow.

medc, a point of clarification if you would, as your above response seemed to be incomplete and I'm still trying to "get my head around" not only your stance for a "changed heart" BEFORE anything else makes sense, but your stance given that position (which I happen to agree with, btw) as it relates to any "witnessing" for Christ to those who have not yet had such a "changed heart."

If telling people about Jesus and why they should consider surrendering their lives to Him "makes no sense" until after they have had a changed heart (at which point we are really talking about discipling, not acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior), what is your stance regardng any "evangelistic outreach," be it mission, "Billy Graham-like crusades," "altar calls" in church for people who might be unbelievers in attendance at a church service, etc.?

Why should any of those activities be undertaken if they are meaningless as a means "to reach the lost?"

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 03:59 PM
I am glad you asked FH...I have been part of Billy Graham outreach programs through my church. After working at ground zero, I actually stayed up in NYC for three additional weeks doing just that. I would wander the streets close to ground zero late at night...it wasn't to hard to tell who was hurting and in need of a friend...an ear...God.

I did not appeal to people with "proof" of Christ and His deity. I appealed to their hearts by praying with and for them...by showing them compassion and love at a time when they most needed this. I appealed to their heart and witnessed in a way that might make them open to the Lord's call. Our pastor would call it helping to roll the stone away...not from their mind...but from their heart.


My pastor does not make altar calls based on a persons brain. I would suggest that attending the church in the first place suggests some type of call from the Lord. It did for me at the harvest Crusade. I was home on a Friday night....and felt the call to drive 45 minutes to the Philly Spectrum at which point I handed over my life to Christ. It was not the things I read or learned about before that...it was a call to my heart that brought me down. I think it is the same with altar calls.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 04:02 PM
and to add...the fools that would stand on the street corner and shout out their "proofs"...including MANY Christians...thumping their Bibles...shouting out Scripture that they felt explained the attacks...well, FH...they were ignored or laughed at....some were assaulted for their tactics. I have a distinct feeling as I have pointed out here at times that they help turn people away from God...not towards him.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 04:24 PM
here's a link to the type of work we were able to do up there.

http://www.calvarymagazine.org/PDF/Issue_9/new_york_911_iss9_01.pdf
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 04:54 PM
Sounds very rewarding MEDC. I know you and the people you were serving must have been very blessed.

Just for the record, I believe it is a combination of heart and mind which leads one into a full faith in Christ.

The starting point may be different for different people, but ultimately they will grow into a strong faith which utilizes both knowledge and feeling.
Posted By: Marshmallow Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 05:09 PM
Originally Posted by keepitreal
Sounds very rewarding MEDC. I know you and the people you were serving must have been very blessed.

Just for the record, I believe it is a combination of heart and mind which leads one into a full faith in Christ.

The starting point may be different for different people, but ultimately they will grow into a strong faith which utilizes both knowledge and feeling.

I agree, Keep.

True conversion is a complex matter. It involves a full-orbed transformation of the heart and mind.

W/o a scriptural knowledge of one's depravity and Jesus Christ's redemption there can be no true conversion.
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 05:30 PM
Quote
People can reject that the Earth is millions of years old too. I would say that the "proof" of that is a heck of a lot more convincing than anything in the Bible. Without His calling me...I would believe as 2long and some others do.

and

Quote
I feel blessed because of that and pray that others open their hearts...NOT THEIR MINDS...and be open to His still, small voice.

You might be surprised 2 learn that I know exactly what you mean.

A Christian friend recently said 2 me, while we were discussing religion and spiri2ality, "You may not have found Him, but he has found you."

I 2k that as a compliment.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: princessmeggy Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 07:25 PM
Quote
I am glad you asked FH...I have been part of Billy Graham outreach programs through my church. After working at ground zero, I actually stayed up in NYC for three additional weeks doing just that. I would wander the streets close to ground zero late at night...it wasn't to hard to tell who was hurting and in need of a friend...an ear...God.

I did not appeal to people with "proof" of Christ and His deity. I appealed to their hearts by praying with and for them...by showing them compassion and love at a time when they most needed this. I appealed to their heart and witnessed in a way that might make them open to the Lord's call. Our pastor would call it helping to roll the stone away...not from their mind...but from their heart.

MEDC, my respect level for you just went up a notch. My H believes the way you do. He says, people can "hear" or "analyze" the "good news" over and over again but it doesn't make a difference if their heart isn't touched. Your "actions" in New York spoke your heart (and God's heart) to those people. No telling how many lives you effected.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 09:34 PM
Thank you. It's funny, but I felt blessed to be there...and have made some wonderful friends as a result.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 09:36 PM
sounds like you have a wise and good friend there 2L....and he's right.
Posted By: bigkahuna Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/06/08 11:16 PM
If someone get's "argued" into making a commitment, they will just as easily get "argued" out of it.

The whole concept of Christian apologetics is that we need to be ready to make a defense for the hope that is within us.

IF our beliefs are not credible then people will have closed minds towards the gospel. People with shallow faith are also easily swayed.

The Bible says without faith it is impossible to please God. But being a christian does not mean you have to kiss your brains goodbye.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/07/08 12:29 AM
Quote
But being a christian does not mean you have to kiss your brains goodbye.

no kidding.

Quote
People with shallow faith are also easily swayed.

well, thankfully I am not being easily swayed.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/07/08 02:22 AM
Quote
My pastor does not make altar calls based on a persons brain. I would suggest that attending the church in the first place suggests some type of call from the Lord. It did for me at the harvest Crusade. I was home on a Friday night....and felt the call to drive 45 minutes to the Philly Spectrum at which point I handed over my life to Christ. It was not the things I read or learned about before that...it was a call to my heart that brought me down. I think it is the same with altar calls.

What you are describing is what I've said for years, it is the thing called "regeneration" that originates with God that "softens" a heart and prepares it to actually HEAR the proofs and accept them, to CHOOSE to surrender to Jesus as Lord and Savior.

And that's where I think there seems to be the "rub" about proof in what you are saying. It is logical to assume, I would think, that WHAT is "informing your heart" (and a discussion of what the Bible means when that term is used might be a good way to attempt the clearing away of a possibly "too narrow" definition of "heart" that I hear coming from the way you using it), is important to the "response process" of a regenerated heart .

There is also another reason for the PROOF that is irrefutably true, and it is to "convict" those who will not accept even the proof. If you think it would be helpful, I could cite the relevant passage of Scripture concering this.


Quote
I did not appeal to people with "proof" of Christ and His deity. I appealed to their hearts by praying with and for them...by showing them compassion and love at a time when they most needed this. I appealed to their heart and witnessed in a way that might make them open to the Lord's call. Our pastor would call it helping to roll the stone away...not from their mind...but from their heart.


Very good, medc. This is what I call "lifesytle evangelism." It is the working out of the truth in one's life, with concern for everyone, including those who are not believers...as in following the Second Greatest Commandment. In another way to look at it, the person may need to have the truth about the infection they have that will kill them if it is not treated, but until you do something that shows genuine concern for that person AS a "person created in the image of God." That would be like pulling someone from the rubble and stopping the bleeding, getting them some medical attention, instead of going straight to the "spiritual need" before admitting there is also a physcial need.

Wrapped up in this is also the idea that believers are not supposed to "judge" unbelievers, but are supposed to judge fellow people who claim to believe in Christ (1
Cor) when their actions and beliefs are contrary to God's clear proofs and revelations as recorded in the Bible.

Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/07/08 11:50 PM
Quote
If my beliefe in God offends my mind and my intellect I would not believe in God.

I love God. I love the definition of God that says "I am in you". I love the God that dwells within us.

That connects us to each other.

The God that is omnipresent, omnipotent, omni...what, everything?

I loved Jesus at a very young age, my earliest memory is of my love for Jesus, in fact. I was the child standing in the corner with my hands behind my back, being disciplined, and thinking that my hands had to be behind my back so I couldn't put them together in prayer. Heck I maybe wasn't even five yet, but this to me was the utmost in punishment, not being able to talk to Jesus. Until my mom told me that you didn't have to put your hands together to pray.

But then I grew up and I found out that I really wasn't a Christian at all, because I didn't believe what the Christians on this board believed. My mom was a Sunday school teacher for 20 something years and my dad had studied for the ministry, but I had never heard the things I have heard on this board, regarding what Christians believe.

And then I decided it was all a crock of chit.

And then life didn't seem so good.

But then my mind remembered. Not my heart, but my mind.

That I didn't have to define God the way others did.

I just had to remember that God is Love. God is the unity.

And I still love Jesus. Jesus, in his perfection, lets me know that God does exists.

And he exists, not only in our hearts, but in our minds. God is within us.

Without God, nothing would exist.

God IS Creation. And we by extension, are creators.

"creation leaves not it's source"

So, having God in your heart is not enough. Feelings don't change lives. Minds do. The belief must reach to your mind, or there is no point. It would not be life changing, should your faith live only in your heart. In feelings. It must be thought changing as well.

I am unable to externalize God, like some seem to do, because every time I view God as external, I stop believing. It is only when I believe in the internal definition, in the realm that all of us are creators, creators of our lives, co-creators of other's lives by our union...that God is real to me.

I am so thankful that my faith in God, and in creation, has been restored. Life can be so dark without that.

2long, yes, you are one who has absolutely internalized God. Our definitions may be more similar then what I first thought, when you said "God is the law"...I say, "God is creation, love, life itself". Kind of close.



Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 12:14 AM
The others are right that with some, all the evidence in the world will not make a difference. However, I don't believe that anyone should believe in anything without evidence. That makes not a lick of sense to me. If they will do that, then they will believe in anything. I have no interest in imaginary friends. I COULD NOT believe in something about which I had no evidence - faith would be impossible for me.

I don't believe in God because it makes me FEEL GOOD. In fact, sometimes it makes me feel VERY BAD. Knowledge of God ruins one's sin life. It's no fun to be bad when you know God.

I believe in Jesus Christ for the same reason I believe in Cuba. I have never been to Cuba but I have seen EVIDENCE and believe it exists. I did not personally witness the Wah of Nawthern Agression, but the evidence convinces me it occurred. On the other hand, I do not believe in Atlantis, UFO's, or that Elvis is alive. And I am unlikely to change that belief unless some compelling evidence is produced. I am not a blind faith person.

I have FAITH that Jesus Christ exists, I have FAITH that Cuba exists, I have FAITH that the Wah of Nawthern Agression occurred. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. But that faith is grounded in evidence, not in fantasy, not in wishful thinking, not in imagination. Imaginary friends are not my bag.

That is how it works for me. The evidence led me to the truth of God and led me to a decision to have FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I was not raised to believe this. I was raised by atheists, but the evidence did not support such a blind faith for me. I do not have the faith to be an atheist.
Posted By: weaver Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 12:28 AM
Quote
Knowledge of God ruins one's sin life. It's no fun to be bad when you know God.

Oh Mel, you so know God.

I'm feeling in the mood for an old fashioned, southern style revival.

I have proof. I don't need anyone else's.

I'm thinking some good ol' Neal Diamond music would be just about right.

This ones for you, lil country fried chicca dee...

Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 12:41 AM
Originally Posted by JosieJones
Quote
Knowledge of God ruins one's sin life. It's no fun to be bad when you know God.

Oh Mel, you so know God.

This ones for you, lil country fried chicca dee...


thankee hunny!! grin Yes, gettin religion ruint my fun, weaver!! cry
Posted By: keepitreal Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 01:35 AM
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
The others are right that with some, all the evidence in the world will not make a difference. However, I don't believe that anyone should believe in anything without evidence. That makes not a lick of sense to me. If they will do that, then they will believe in anything. I have no interest in imaginary friends. I COULD NOT believe in something about which I had no evidence - faith would be impossible for me.

I don't believe in God because it makes me FEEL GOOD. In fact, sometimes it makes me feel VERY BAD. Knowledge of God ruins one's sin life. It's no fun to be bad when you know God.

I believe in Jesus Christ for the same reason I believe in Cuba. I have never been to Cuba but I have seen EVIDENCE and believe it exists. I did not personally witness the Wah of Nawthern Agression, but the evidence convinces me it occurred. On the other hand, I do not believe in Atlantis, UFO's, or that Elvis is alive. And I am unlikely to change that belief unless some compelling evidence is produced. I am not a blind faith person.

I have FAITH that Jesus Christ exists, I have FAITH that Cuba exists, I have FAITH that the Wah of Nawthern Agression occurred. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. But that faith is grounded in evidence, not in fantasy, not in wishful thinking, not in imagination. Imaginary friends are not my bag.

That is how it works for me. The evidence led me to the truth of God and led me to a decision to have FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I was not raised to believe this. I was raised by atheists, but the evidence did not support such a blind faith for me. I do not have the faith to be an atheist.


Wonderful post. Thank you, Mel. This is what I needed to hear today. I believe in God, but was having a hard week and needed reminded.
Posted By: Marshmallow Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 03:07 AM
Mel, I enjoy reading your posts so much.

I envy your clarity of thought and ability to articulate a complex subject matter w/ such simplicity.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment about this part...

Quote
However, I don't believe that anyone should believe in anything without evidence. That makes not a lick of sense to me.

It didn't make sense to God either.

That's why when He gave man a new revelation (through His prophets) He also sent proof (miracle working powers as credentials) that the prophet was indeed bringing God's word.

Quote
The others are right that with some, all the evidence in the world will not make a difference.

Yup. There were even folks who saw the parting of the Red Sea and ate bread from heaven and still didn't believe.











Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 12:10 PM
Agree Marsh. thanks for your kind words, KIR and Marsh. smile
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 02:22 PM
Webster's definition of "faith."

Quote
firm belief in something for which there is no proof

IMHO, without the heart one cannot see the "proof" of Christ. When the stone is rolled away from the heart, the case for God is clear.

One of my favorite Christian songs is...Open the eyes of my heart


If proof existed, IMO, there would be no need for faith.

There are a lot of very, very smart men/women...some of the greatest minds ever...that did not see the proof of God. Why? Was it their lack of intellect...or something else?
Posted By: Marshmallow Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 03:11 PM
Quote
If proof existed, IMO, there would be no need for faith.

The problem isn't a lack of proof, MEDC.

The problem is man's lost condition.

His "heart" or soul includes his mind.

The two are intertwined.





Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 04:05 PM
Originally Posted by medc
There are a lot of very, very smart men/women...some of the greatest minds ever...that did not see the proof of God. Why? Was it their lack of intellect...or something else?

Here is the critical difference to me, MEDC. I have faith that the sun will set in Texas tonight because I have REASON to believe this based on evidence. But if you told me that the sun would NEVER rise again, I could not have "faith" in the veracity of such a claim because there is no evidence. I would not believe you. That is the difference to me.

I CAN have faith in the former; I couldn't have faith in the latter. For me, faith is belief in things UNSEEN, not things UNKNOWN. Hope that clarifies.
Posted By: Marshmallow Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 04:11 PM
Quote
Biblical faith is a strong belief based upon adequate evidence. In the New Testament, the noun ā€œfaithā€ (Greek, pistis) is defined as: ā€œprimarily firm persuasion, a conviction based upon hearing...used in the New Testament always of faith in God or Christ, or things spiritualā€ (Vine, 1940, 2:71). The verb ā€œbelieveā€ (Greek, pisteuo) is defined as: ā€œ...to be persuaded of, and hence, to place confidence in, to trust...reliance upon, not mere credenceā€ (Vine, 1940, 1:116). Thus, biblical faith is a conviction based upon evidence, and is ā€œnot mere credence.ā€ The Bible does not recognize any such concept as a ā€œleap of faith,ā€ because biblical faith is always evidence- or knowledge-based. Peter urged Christians to be ā€œready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fearā€ (1 Peter 3:15). This corresponds directly to what Kaufmann would call a cause for belief because ā€œarguments have been offered in its support.ā€


Quote
Genuine faith derives from facts presented to the mind and from which proper and correct deductions are then drawn (John 20:30,31).... There is no such thing as ā€œblindā€ faith. Faith itself is possible only when reason recognizes the trustworthiness of the testimony which produces it (1994, 125[11]:2).


Quote
In John 6:69, Peter said to the Lord: ā€œAnd we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God.ā€ Writing in 2 Timothy 1:12, Paul said ā€œI know him whom I have believed.ā€ The Samaritans told the woman who brought Christ to them, ā€œNow we believe, not because of thy speaking; for we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Savior of the worldā€ (John 4:42).


Quote
This evidence enlightens the intellect which then makes a volitional commitment not only possible (since I now know what to believe) but also rational (i.e., I know what to believe)! Thus, faith is a volitional commitment of an informed intellect! Knowledge without commitment is disbelief (John 8:30-46; 12:42,43; James 2:19); commitment without knowledge is irrationality! Neither is a genuine option for a Christian (1989, pp. 18-19, emp. in orig.).


LINK
Posted By: Greengables Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 08:47 PM
The problem with using prophets as proof is that all the major religions have prophets, as well as some cults. Most major religions point to the others' prophets and call them "false prophets." Logically, based on evidence alone, how can you tell which prophets are the true prophets? I don't think you can.

Posted By: Marshmallow Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 09:16 PM
Originally Posted by Greengables
The problem with using prophets as proof is that all the major religions have prophets, as well as some cults. Most major religions point to the others' prophets and call them "false prophets." Logically, based on evidence alone, how can you tell which prophets are the true prophets? I don't think you can.

It's not the prophets that are proofs.

It was the miracle working powers that they were given that gave them credentials. And proved that they were receiving messages from God.





Posted By: Greengables Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 09:21 PM
The major religions all have miracles in them, Marshmellow. Most, also claim to be the only true religion. Some sects of Hindu are the exception.

Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 10:07 PM
Okay, here's some fodder for thoughtter:

I know that Cuba exists, but I don't believe in it.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/08/08 11:28 PM
You believe in Cuba's existence, don't you?
Posted By: Greengables Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/09/08 10:54 AM
Nah, that logic doesn't work if you define God as All Powerful, All Knowing and All Beneficient. If that's God "to know him is to love him." You'd be a follower. Assuming you used the word "believe" in the sense of "follow" "worship" etc.

I took a philosphy class, The Philosphy of Religion, my prof. suggested that all philosophy becomes semantics in the end. LOL.
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/09/08 12:08 PM
Yep, it does when the question is a belief in the existence OF. No one ever suggested that we WORSHIP Cuba or view it as a diety, which is a different question entirely. While the outcome of the belief is different - an island is different from God obviously - the way we got there is the same, ie: the EVIDENCE.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/09/08 02:15 PM
Quote
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."
~1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (NIV)

this sums it all up for me. Emphasis added is mime...but the point is, without God calling to you, no matter how great your intellect(and some of the greatest minds have rejected God)...His word will have no meaning.

eta...and the argument against a verse like this is that it stifles intelligent disagreement with scripture. If one is to argue against this...well, the words have already defined them as foolish. Kind of leaves both the believer and the unbeliever in a bit of a weird position. But, if you don't agree with me...well, that's just because you are wrong.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/09/08 04:57 PM
Quote
but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."
~1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (NIV)


this sums it all up for me. Emphasis added is mime...but the point is, without God calling to you, no matter how great your intellect(and some of the greatest minds have rejected God)...His word will have no meaning.

eta...and the argument against a verse like this is that it stifles intelligent disagreement with scripture. If one is to argue against this...well, the words have already defined them as foolish. Kind of leaves both the believer and the unbeliever in a bit of a weird position. But, if you don't agree with me...well, that's just because you are wrong.

medc - that's not the argument that I would use, because I happen to agree with the underlined part of your post.

What that is referring to is the "elect," the doctrine of Election.

It IS by the grace of God that anyone is saved, but WE don't know who the "elect" are.

We are "seed planters" who are planting seeds in obedience to the Great Commission, which is also a revealed truth of God.

"God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."

WHAT was preached? The fact of Christ, of His death and resurrection, attested to by way of "proof statements" by those who were eyewitnesses to the facts surrounding this "man" Jesus Christ.

It is not our "job" to "prove" Christ. It is our job to present the proof and let God work in the hearts of those who are, by His grace, elected to hear and accept the "proof" that Jesus IS who He said He is, and then to choose to surrender their lives TO Him. What we are "called to do" is to be SERVANTS of God who follow His commands, not to decide which commands we will follow and which ones we won't follow.

To those who are "perishing," the words, the proofs, everything related to a surrendered life TO God through Jesus Christ IS "foolishness." But that is no reason to NOT, ourselves, be obedient to the Great Commission, to be obedient to make the truth of Jesus Christ known to everyone in every corner of the world. In fact, that is a necessary step in the plan of God leading up to His direct intervention in this world and the establishment of His kingdom for all eternity.

When we are told to "stand ready to give a reason for WHY you belief, for the faith that is within you," we are receiving a command from God to TELL people the facts concerning Jesus Christ whether or not they happen to presently be believers or unbelievers.

The reason is twofold; 1) to minimize the chance that error and "another gospel" can be allowed to remain in the "body" of believers, thereby possibly contaminating the whole body with false doctrines, and 2) to be "seed planters" for the unbelievers, for the ones that God HAS elected but who have not yet "understood" who Jesus Christ is (the purpose of the Great Commission).

To "tolerate" false doctrine is to say that God is wrong and that there are MANY ways to be reconciled to God when He has clearly said that there is only one way, HIS way, and that He has revealed HIS way in His Son and in the Scripture.

To not provide the "proof" to unbelievers is to, perhaps, not love them enough to say they are "wrong" and that it's not "just my opinion," but is the direct revelation of God Himself to all of us. It isn't our job to "convince them," it is only our job to present the truth as God has given it to us in the Scripture, His chosen means of conveying that truth to us all.

God bless.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/09/08 05:26 PM
The REASON why I believe has NOTHING to do with provable facts regarding the history of Christ...miracles...etc(as I said, I do not think they can be proven). The ONLY reason I opened myself up to His truth is because He called me....even today with the same intellect, absent his touch, I would not believe.

I can tell you FH that without that call...I see very, very smart people discount God altogether. It is NOT my job to judge an unbeliever and tell them they are wrong. It is my job to tell them what I believe and why.

Quote
To "tolerate" false doctrine is to say that God is wrong and that there are MANY ways to be reconciled to God when He has clearly said that there is only one way, HIS way, and that He has revealed HIS way in His Son and in the Scripture.

To "tolerate" something is NOT saying that God is wrong. I do not know another persons heart and their relationship with God.

Quote
It isn't our job to "convince them," it is only our job to present the truth as God has given it to us in the Scripture, His chosen means of conveying that truth to us all.


To people that have not been called to God it is just words in a book that tell...what is at times..a horrible story.


I am sorry, but I can tell you that I will NEVER be convinced that the way to reach someone is by Bible thumping or giving them facts. I have a strong backing for my belief in both the Word and what I have been taught by men of God. You see Scripture a different way. I am not asking you to alter your view...but I can guarantee you that based on my own personal testimony, my ability to reach others when I witness to them and the verse by verse teachings that my church gives to me, I will continue with my current beliefs and approach.

I KNOW the Lord...because He called me.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/09/08 05:53 PM
Quote
What that is referring to is the "elect," the doctrine of Election.

yes, I know. I was speaking of unbelievers and the arguments that are used against this type of verbiage in any writing or communication.

Quote
We are "seed planters" who are planting seeds in obedience to the Great Commission

I agree. We happen to disagree about how the seeds should be planted. FH, I will humbly ask you to consider how many times on this site (and this is a small portion of your life) that you have been told that your approach(style) is one that turns unbelievers away from being open to hearing about God.

I will also humbly ask if you have found this to be a problem in your personal life. I know you have had issues when it comes to worshiping with others. Is this perhaps one of the reasons?

I see the need for a persons heart to be in this before their intellect(that will follow). This is where faith comes into play for me. Again, I will note that faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven.

I ask you the above questions to get you to examine how your approach might be working. If it works fine for you, I say go forth...mine works quite well for me, so I shall do the same. I certainly respect your view on things even if we do see things from a bit of a different perspective.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/09/08 09:45 PM
Quote
I can tell you FH that without that call...I see very, very smart people discount God altogether. It is NOT my job to judge an unbeliever and tell them they are wrong. It is my job to tell them what I believe and why.

Of course some "very smart people discount God altogether." But if it's your "job to tell them what you believe and why," WHAT do you tell them? WHAT, to be more precise, is it that you tell them that you believe and WHY do you believe it? Why is it your JOB to "tell them what I believe and why?" Therein is the issue of "what" about Jesus versus anyone else or anything else? Therein is the issue of "why" Jesus, the Jesus of the Holy Bible, and no one else.

To be clear here, there are TWO "classes" of people that are involved in this "judge or not judge" issue. The first are the "unbelievers," those who reject Jesus Christ. "Judgment," as in "condemning someone" or in a "legal" sense is NOT to be applied to unbelievers.

The second are those who PROFESS a belief in Jesus Christ and consider themselves, or at least claim, to be Christians. In that instance the Bible is clear that we, as fellow believers, ARE to "judge" the actions and statements of other believers with respect to being WHAT God has said to all believers.



Quote
To "tolerate" something is NOT saying that God is wrong. I do not know another persons heart and their relationship with God.

That is not what I meant by the word "tolerate." I thought you knew that so allow me to explain what I meant further, perhaps it will add some clarification.

Let me quote something from Ravi Zacharias' Bible Study that we are using in our current small group Bible Study, as it has a direct bearing on what I was trying to say, but apparently not communicating the thought very well.


"A lot of people think that if you believe you are right and someone else is wrong, then you are being intolerant. But this is a misunderstanding. Historically, tolerance has been defined as "putting up with beliefs one takes to be erroneous or false." In fact, we often use tolerance in this way today. Most people tolerate Brussels spouts of liver when served it as guests, but no one tolerates what he enjoys (chocolate or ice cream). Today, though, some people have said that tolerance means "accepting all views as true and not saying any are false." But if we define tolerance this way, then we'll start accepting views that contradict one another. The relativist will be put in the awkward spot of believing his view - that everything is relative = and my view - that absolutes exist. But the relativist by definition cannot accept an absolutist's view as false.

Tolerance, properly understood, means that we respect people enough to permit them to hold their beliefs even if we profoundly disagree with them. Tolerance says that all people should be accepted as possessing dignity and thus as being worthy of respect. This does not mean we have to accept their views as true or that they are worthy of belief. True tolerance distinguishes between people and beliefs; genuine tolerance is the acceptance and respectful treatment of other people - even if we don't accept their views. Remember that the relativist will never accept the absolutist's view as true or legitimate. And you've probably noticed how some people can say that we should accept all views as true - until they talk to someone who doesn't accept all views as true! At this point, all logic often stops, and insulting begins!" (What Is Truth?, RZIM Critical Questions Series)



Quote
I am not asking you to alter your view...but I can guarantee you that based on my own personal testimony, my ability to reach others when I witness to them and the verse by verse teachings that my church gives to me, I will continue with my current beliefs and approach.

And I wouldn't dream of telling you that you need to change YOUR beliefs or approach. By the same token, I wouldn't expect you to tell me or another believer to change OUR beliefs. There are MANY parts that make up the one body of believers, medc, and you and I are but two of them. We quite likely don't even have the same gifts, as it is God who determines that. He also provides Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists, Missionaries, etc., etc. with differing "skill sets" if you will, so that together they accomplish HIS purpose.



Quote
I KNOW the Lord...because He called me.

Absolutely. I KNOW the Lord for the same reason, but I'm also willing to "bet" that the method He used to call each of us was different and was the method that you needed and that I needed.

By the same token, we are all accountable to God for CHOOSING to accept Jesus Christ or for rejecting Him. God clearly places an "onus" on us in the area of accountability for CHOOSING Christ. He calls, but He does not FORCE you or me or anyone to listen and accept.



Quote
I agree. We happen to disagree about how the seeds should be planted. FH, I will humbly ask you to consider how many times on this site (and this is a small portion of your life) that you have been told that your approach(style) is one that turns unbelievers away from being open to hearing about God.

Bear with me on this one, okay? It does not matter to me if people "don't like what they hear." My "goal" is not to "please man," it is to please God through humbly submitting my will, my likes, my fears, my pride, to HIM in humble obedience EVEN IF NO ONE "liked" what was said and even if everyone "hated" me for saying it. That someone may or may not like my "style" of speech is not important to me. Standing for the TRUTH is what is important, not how someone "says" it in an effort to communicate it.

My "mission," if you will, is NOT to "convert" anyone on this site to Christianity and I EXPECT "unbelievers," who you refer to, to be turned away because they don't have Christ in their lives and it's all "foolishness" to them. Look at 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 for example. Was Paul "concerned" about what he said or was he concerned about standing FOR God? Was he being "judgmental?" Does his language offend you?



Quote
I will also humbly ask if you have found this to be a problem in your personal life.


Though this seems a bit of a DJ, let me respond anyway. No, I have not found it to be a problem in my personal life, if that really is any business of yours, but it has not.



Quote
I know you have had issues when it comes to worshiping with others. Is this perhaps one of the reasons?

What "issues" about worshipping with others are you referring to? I worship together with many other believers, have held leadership positions in church before, have taught Sunday School with many people telling me afterward how much they enjoyed and appreciated the way I handled and presented the topic. I have been asked by the Pastor and the Elders to enter the Leaders in Training program at our church, and have declined as I don't think I am personally ready to commit the time needed to be more involved than just as a Teacher and small group Bible study particpant right now. So just what "issues" are you referring to?



Quote
I see the need for a persons heart to be in this before their intellect(that will follow). This is where faith comes into play for me. Again, I will note that faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven.

I ask you the above questions to get you to examine how your approach might be working. If it works fine for you, I say go forth...mine works quite well for me, so I shall do the same.

Let me simple quote Paul on this issue as perhaps a way to better explain my position on this issue of "faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven."

See 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, and then;

"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is not resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15:12-17, NIV)


Perhaps something else to think about regarding how you define "faith" is to consider Jesus' teaching that "unless you have faith like a child you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." That "faith" Jesus is talking about is related to how a child has faith in their parents, a trust in them, even though they may not all the "why's." The assumption that goes with that is that the parents ARE trustworthy and true and will be acting in the best interests of the child. They are worthy of the faith the child places in them, that the child has learned to place in them from how they "parent."

By the same token, Jesus rebukes people for placing their faith in "their father, the devil."

"Again, I will note that faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven."

"Faith" by itself is only as good as WHAT that faith believes in. It is not "just" something that cannot be proven, it is the OBJECT of that faith that is important.

It seems that you may be "splitting hairs" here a little and mixing up the "regenerative work" of God that precedes a heart that can HEAR the Word of God, the testimonies, the proofs, and that can CHOOSE to accept Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior with "proof" not being needed in any way, shape, or form.

God bless.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/09/08 10:18 PM
Quote
What "issues" about worshipping with others are you referring to? I worship together with many other believers, have held leadership positions in church before, have taught Sunday School with many people telling me afterward how much they enjoyed and appreciated the way I handled and presented the topic. I have been asked by the Pastor and the Elders to enter the Leaders in Training program at our church, and have declined as I don't think I am personally ready to commit the time needed to be more involved than just as a Teacher and small group Bible study particpant right now. So just what "issues" are you referring to?

I may be mistaken. I was under the impression that you did NOT go to a church and worship with others. I must be mistaken. Sorry for the confusion.

Quote
See 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, and then;

"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is not resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15:12-17, NIV)

I am very familiar with these verses FH. They do not offer any proof...but they are profound.



Quote
"unless you have faith like a child you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

I do not agree that Christ was suggesting a child/parent type faith here at all. I understand where you are coming from though.

I agree that the object of the faith is what is supremely important. I just disagree that His existence and deity can be proven.


Quote
This does not mean we have to accept their views as true or that they are worthy of belief.

I agree 100%.


Quote
Though this seems a bit of a DJ, let me respond anyway. No, I have not found it to be a problem in my personal life, if that really is any business of yours, but it has not.

It was a question, nothing more.

I need to run. Have a nice night.
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/09/08 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
You believe in Cuba's existence, don't you?

You're mixing faith-based concepts (belief) with facts (Cuba's existence).

Hence, I KNOW it exists (though I have never been there, I have seen orbiter images of it, and I have no reason not 2 trust my cartography colleagues that it is really there), but I don't believe in the political state of Cuba as it has been since Castro 2k it over.

Similarly, I KNOW that religions that worship their concepts of God exist, but I don't believe in them.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/09/08 11:29 PM
Originally Posted by 2long
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
You believe in Cuba's existence, don't you?

Hence, I KNOW it exists (though I have never been there, I have seen orbiter images of it, and I have no reason not 2 trust my cartography colleagues that it is really there), but I don't believe in the political state of Cuba as it has been since Castro 2k it over.


Thanks for making my point for me. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate that one can believe in somethings EXISTENCE without having been there. You have not been to CUBA yourself, but you have FAITH it is there because of the evidence. I have faith in the existence of Jesus Christ because of the evidence. I have faith that he is God because of the evidence. The evidence leads me to believe that Cuba is an ISLAND and that Jesus Christ is GOD.
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/09/08 11:43 PM
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Thanks for making my point for me.

You're welcome, if you think I did.

I don't think I did. I think you completely missed my point. I think it would be respectful (though I don't expect it), if you would refrain from claiming I'm making your point in fu2re. I didn't intend what you are claiming I said. I hope others reading what I wrote will try 2 understand what I said from their own viewpoint, rather than referring 2 yours.

In science, it is possible 2 believe that something is possible, and acting on that belief by taking a chance that it'll work out as anticipated - like sending rockets 2 Mars. Even then, it's as much a matter of practice as it is faith, because we've done it before (more often successfully than not, but we have failed as well).

I believe that something that you folks like 2 label "God" does in fact exist, without having a way or a need 2 prove it 2 you or anyone else. I prove it 2 myself 2 my own satisfaction every day.

I don't believe in the religions around that subject (the God stuff), though.

That was my point.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/09/08 11:49 PM
Actually, you did make my point for me. Thanks..
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/10/08 02:12 AM
Quote
You're mixing faith-based concepts (belief) with facts (Cuba's existence).

Hence, I KNOW it exists (though I have never been there, I have seen orbiter images of it, and I have no reason not 2 trust my cartography colleagues that it is really there), but I don't believe in the political state of Cuba as it has been since Castro 2k it over.

Similarly, I KNOW that religions that worship their concepts of God exist, but I don't believe in them.


2long, you may be "stretching" this analogy a bit.

You seem to equate "belief" with a "man-made" concept, an "invention of the mind" with no basis in factual events and reasons.

Cuba, as an island, DOES exist today, but let's "fast forward" a thousand years and suppose (like the fabled Atlantis) it no longer exists. Would belief at that time, say the year 3008, that Cuba "exists" be real or "faith-based?" How about a belief that Cuba "existed" and still does though it has sunk so far beneath the waves that there is no way to "get down there to take a look for myself?" Would that be a belief in facts or a "faith-based" belief? What if all we had were books that described Cuba and told how real it was? Why should we believe the books, the history and historical recordings and accept them as "facts" that proved the existence of Cuba?

The "thing" that distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that it is NOT about a "concept" but about a real, factual, Person, who is the OBJECT of that faith.

Now, as with belief in Cuba, "little green men from Mars," Jesus Christ, or just about anything, no one has to "believe" the facts, but even if they do "believe" the facts, they don't have to accept Jesus Christ AS their Lord and Savior. They CAN acknowledge Him for being who He is, and still refuse to accept Him as Lord and Savior and surrender their lives to Him.

Shoot, 2long, you and I have been "all over" the creation/evolution options of how life originated, as well as how the diversity of life is explained. Yet you and I know that Origins cannot be duplicated and tested in the lab or by using the "scientific method." The same holds true for the origin of life and also for the "how" did all the various life-forms come into being.

Proponents of both evolution and creation ALL hold their positions on a "faith based concept" and NOT on "hard facts."

But it is different when it comes to the Christian faith, because it IS grounded in a real, factual, person, who he said he was, what he did, and the faithful recording of all the events that occurred that "proved" his "claims." Without the person of Christ, there is no "Christian religion" and without His resurrection from the dead, even Christianity would be "no better" than any other belief system, religious or otherwise.

Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/10/08 02:23 AM
Quote
I am very familiar with these verses FH. They do not offer any proof...but they are profound.

The resurrection IS the proof, medc. And Paul is presenting that fact as proof. Whether or not anyone "accepts" the proof is irrelevant. Paul clearly presents the resurrection of Christ as the "definitive proof" that Jesus IS who He said He is and, therefore, IS the only way by which anyone can receive forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God.

Without the FACT of the resurrection, Christianity would be as useless as any other "belief system" in obtaining justification with God. It is NOT the "belief system" that is important, it is the OBJECT of that belief, the FACTUAL existence of Jesus Christ and the FACTUAL reality of who He is, as "proven" by the miracles, up to and including His resurrection from the dead.

And yes, I agree, they ARE profound.
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/10/08 02:30 AM
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Actually, you did make my point for me. Thanks..

Will you please just cut it out?

I did not make your point, I made MINE. You just didn't get it.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/10/08 02:40 AM
You're welcome. smile
Posted By: MelodyLane Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/10/08 02:41 AM
Great post, ForeverHers! smile
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/10/08 03:13 AM
Quote
Without the FACT of the resurrection, Christianity would be as useless as any other "belief system" in obtaining justification with God.

I am certain other beliefs feel the same way about Christianity.

Quote
The resurrection IS the proof, medc.

There is no PROOF of the Resurrection. I believe it to be fact because the Lord has called me...but even as a believer, I see no "proof." I have faith that those things are true and part of history....but have never seen proof and most likely these mortal eyes never will. I do NOT believe that it can be proven...just like I do not believe any of the miracles can be proved. I honestly wish they could so that all the world would open themselves to God's love.

There is NO record of any of these events that would stand up in a court FH....doesn't mean they aren't true...it just means it requires faith to believe them. As I stated earlier in this thread, documenting things YEARS(decades) after the event does not constitute proof.

You can continue to say that there is proof...but, I don't believe it exists. Thank God for faith. My pastor speaks to this very issue and I think he is right.

Do we have proof that the Lord created the world? No.
Do we have proof that Jesus gave sight to the blind? No.
Do we have proof he walked on water? No.
Do we have proof that he called Lazarus from the dead? No.

But we do have faith. Praise God.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/10/08 03:22 AM
Faith is defined as ā€œunquestioning beliefs that do not require proof or evidence.ā€

Heb 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the [b]evidence of things not seen.[/b]


Posted By: Greengables Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/10/08 01:56 PM
I agree with you, Medoc.

If one believes Christianity is the only true religion, one must then discount the Bible as proof of God's existance. Consider the logic.
Other religions are false.
Other religions have scriptures saying the religion is true, and the scriptures were either dictated by the divine or inspired by the divine.
If the other religions are false, the scriptures which claim they are true must be false.
If those scriptures are false, they cannot be evidence.
If you disallow others scriptures as evidence that their religions are true, how can Judeo-Christian scripture be considered proof?

It can only be considered evidence or proof if you already believe.

Evidence based on belief or faith is not proof.

You cannot show a Muslim the Bible and expect her to convert immediately because she's been shown the evidence that Christ is the way. Only when God calls her to see the Bible will she accept it.
Posted By: Marshmallow Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/10/08 08:34 PM
Originally Posted by medc
Heb 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the [b]evidence of things not seen.[/b]

Look at the whole chapter, MEDC.

Yes, Noah had not seen or experienced a flood before he built the ark. And yes, Abraham went to an unknown land and he never saw a person raised from the dead before, but believed God could do it...

But, were they acting w/o evidence? Did they have no knowledge of what they were doing, or why they were doing it?

God told Noah how to build that ark. He told Abraham where to go and was promised an inheritance. He was told that it was through Isaac that his seed would be called.

We have not died and gone to heaven yet, but we believe we will b/c of the evidence we already have. We know He will be faithful.... we know He will keep His promises based upon the evidence we DO have.




Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 02:01 AM
Sorry Marsh, but I have FAITH that God will keep His promises. That faith is not based on evidence. I understand you see it differently.

I stand by my statements about proof.

Do we have proof that God told Noah how to build an ark? No...we have faith.

Do we have any proof that any true believer has gone to heaven? No...we have faith.

If there is proof of these things, I am still waiting for someone to show me proof....but wait, I do not need it. I have faith in the Lord. His call to me is all the proof I need.

Before anyone continue with this discussion, please know, I respect your right to disagree. I am not at all standing against your faith...but unless someone can show me PROOF....and proof would NOT require faith, I will continue to believe as I do.

I have spoken to people that have spent almost their entire lives in the Word and even they admit that proof does not exist. Even if the ark were found tomorrow..that would not offer proof that the Lord was the reason Noah built the ship. Perhaps there is just a difference in my literal use of faith and proof here. Faith IMHO would not be required if proof were available.

Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 06:21 AM
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
You seem to equate "belief" with a "man-made" concept, an "invention of the mind" with no basis in factual events and reasons.

Indeed I do. Except for the "no basis" part. There can be a "factual" basis for belief (faith), but it's not a requirement.

Quote
Cuba, as an island, DOES exist today, but let's "fast forward" a thousand years and suppose (like the fabled Atlantis) it no longer exists. Would belief at that time, say the year 3008, that Cuba "exists" be real or "faith-based?" How about a belief that Cuba "existed" and still does though it has sunk so far beneath the waves that there is no way to "get down there to take a look for myself?"

Heck, if Atlantis ever existed but sank below the waves, I could look for it now! I wouldn't have 2 wait a thousand years for the technology. And it's been done, and it isn't there (or it's not Atlantis and it's not in the Atlantic).

Quote
Would that be a belief in facts or a "faith-based" belief? What if all we had were books that described Cuba and told how real it was? Why should we believe the books, the history and historical recordings and accept them as "facts" that proved the existence of Cuba?

We shouldn't, if we don't want 2. We should be willing 2 prove 2 our own satisfaction if we have a strong opinion that deviates from the prevailing, peer-review-based conclusion, however.

Quote
The "thing" that distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that it is NOT about a "concept" but about a real, factual, Person, who is the OBJECT of that faith.

I'm with medc on this one. Outside the Bible, there is no proof of his existence. Again, that doesn't mean that he didn't exist, just that his existence hasn't been independently proven.

Quote
Now, as with belief in Cuba, "little green men from Mars," Jesus Christ, or just about anything, no one has to "believe" the facts, but even if they do "believe" the facts, they don't have to accept Jesus Christ AS their Lord and Savior. They CAN acknowledge Him for being who He is, and still refuse to accept Him as Lord and Savior and surrender their lives to Him.

If it works for you, great. Doesn't for me. Again, I equate the term belief with faith-based approaches 2 understanding our place in and the substance of the spiri2al "world". For the physical world, and the stuff in it, I don't have 2 "believe without proof" in the existence of those things, because proving them myself isn't that difficult (though it can be expensive) if I need 2 do that.

Scientists can be working with hypotheses that necessarily assume some "fact" or behavior has been proven, even if they haven't proven it themselves. But the whole process of scientific investigation will require that, if the hypthesis doesn't hold up, the scientist will need 2 look for the point of failure, particularly if it's an area that they accepted without testing themselves.

Quote
Shoot, 2long, you and I have been "all over" the creation/evolution options of how life originated, as well as how the diversity of life is explained. Yet you and I know that Origins cannot be duplicated and tested in the lab or by using the "scientific method."

1. Evolution is about how life changed over time, not about origins.

2. Origins have not been duplicated in the lab (though complex organic materials have been in simulated na2ural, sterile settings), but I bet they will be. 100 years ago, the artificial heart would have been unthinkable.

Quote
Proponents of both evolution and creation ALL hold their positions on a "faith based concept" and NOT on "hard facts."

Fossils and stratigraphy. Hard facts.

Quote
But it is different when it comes to the Christian faith, because it IS grounded in a real, factual, person, who he said he was, what he did, and the faithful recording of all the events that occurred that "proved" his "claims." Without the person of Christ, there is no "Christian religion" and without His resurrection from the dead, even Christianity would be "no better" than any other belief system, religious or otherwise.

What medc said.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 06:25 AM
Originally Posted by Marshmallow
[quote=medc]
Yes, Noah had not seen or experienced a flood before he built the ark.

Aka, Gilgamesh.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 11:23 AM
Quote
I'm with medc on this one. Outside the Bible, there is no proof of his existence. Again, that doesn't mean that he didn't exist, just that his existence hasn't been independently proven.

Again, this is a false statement. I guess I will have to list some "extrabiblical" citations of his existence as a real person in history.

"Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived circa 37-100 AD. His Hebrew name was Joseph ben Mattathias, and he received an excellent education in Jerusalem. After leading a failed revolt of the Jewish forces against Rome, Josephus was captured and became a Roman citizen. He served as pensioner of several Flavian emperors and is most widely known by the name he then acquired, Flavius Josephus.

Around 93 AD., Josephus published Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jews in twenty books. Though not a prominent subject of his writing, John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, and Jesus' brother James are all mentioned in Jewish Antiquities. This represents the earliest historical record of Jesus from someone who was a professional historian."


James, the Brother of Jesus: Antiquities 20.9.1 "So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned..."

Jesus, Wise Man and Teacher: Antiquities 18.3.3 "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, (if it be lawful to call him a man,) for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. (He was the Christ;) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, (for he appeared to them alive again the third day,) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Note: Interpolations, possibly added by others, are indicated in parenthesis.



"Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian who lived circa 56-120 AD. He is believed to have been born in France or Gaul into a provincial aristocratic family. He became a senator, a consul, and eventually governor of Asia.

Tacitus wrote at least four historic treatises. Around 115 AD, he published Annals in which he explicitly states that Nero prosecuted the Christians in order to draw attention away from himself for Rome's devastating fire of 64 AD. In that context, he mentions Christus who was put to death by Pontius Pilate.

Christus: Annals 15.44.2-8 "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...""


"Jesus (also called Christ which means king or Messiah) was born in Israel 2000 years ago. Modern civilization marks his birth by dividing time B.C. (before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini - or the year of our Lord). For his first thirty years, Jesus lived a traditional Jewish life, working as a carpenter. During this time, all of Israel was under Caesar's Roman dictatorship, including Bethlehem, where Jesus was born, and Nazareth, where he was raised."

History itself is recorded based up a calendar that centers on the real person of Jesus, who existed as a real person, in history. Claims regarding his position AS the Messiah prophecied in the Old Testament notwithstanding, the "man" Jesus of Nazareth DID exist as a real live person and not as "figment of someone's imagination." Pilate did not crucify an "imaginary person," he crucified, and reported as crucified, a real person, regardless of any religions claims for or against him.

Even the "geologic column" that you use is predicated on this method of "marking time," B.C. and A.D.

2long, there are MANY "persons of history" that are "proven" by the mention of them in historical records. We may not be able to "see" today that person or persons, but the historical record authenticates that they REALLY DID EXIST.

Now, someone like Alexander the Great, or Nero, or whoever else, may have thought they were a "god" and not "just a man," and perhaps even some others may have believed that, but there was no "authentication" of that "god-power" as there was with Jesus, both in the miracles He personally performed that "broke" or "transcended" the usual "physical laws" and in His own resurrection from the dead and His PHYSICAL appearance to over 500 people as "proof" that He had, in FACT, risen from the dead (against all known physcial laws).




Quote
Fossils and stratigraphy. Hard facts.

I'd really rather not get into a discussion of these things at this time, perhaps some other time.

So all I will comment on is the confusion you present here between "facts" (data) and "interpretation" (opinion) of those facts.

Fossils exist. Strata within various geological formations exist.

What is different is the intrepretation of those facts based upon a presupposed reality that is NOT itself backed by any proof that is "proven" and not subject to valid alternative explanations. You know, as well as I do, the "limitations," for example, of things like radiocarbon dating and that the "timeline" for the generally used advocacy for evolution IS the supposed "geologic column" itself, of which the complete "column" exists nowhere in the world.

"Alternative explanations" of the very same data are "rejected out of hand" by evolutionists simply because they WILL NOT "allow" any other possible explanation other than "evolution," even when the facts fit another "model" better, especially from the standpoint of facts verifying what a given model would PREDICT should be seen in fact.

Rather, proponents of "evolution" as "the answer" continually come up with "ingenious" ideas to explain the LACK of proof that might substantiate the theory (opinion) that evolution can explain how life began from non-life and how the vast diversity of life and increasing complexity of life-forms came into being, against the Laws of Science (i.e., the 1st and 2nd Thermodynamic Laws; the laws of Information Science, etc.). The "latest" in this chain of "ideas" that are presented to the general public as "fact," is that of Stephen J. Gould and his hypothesis of "Punctuated Equilibrium." No facts, just conjecture spun out of whole speculation with the intent to try to answer glaring flaws in the "logic" of the "evolutionary theory."

You, yourself, once told me that you didn't think anyone who believed in creation COULD be a "scientist," yet many many "men of science" were, and many today are, believers in God and creation AND in science and scientific inquiry. ONLY a presupposition, a "bias" if you will, FOR evolution as the ONLY (and itself totally UNPROVEN) means by which LIFE "evolved" from non-life and that the diversity and increasing complexity of life can account for the refusal to acknowledge men of science who also believe in God and the "creation model."

Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 11:46 AM
Quote
1. Evolution is about how life changed over time, not about origins.

No, evolution is NOT "about how life changed over time," EVEN IF you want to ignore the fundamental evolutionary hypothesis that LIFE itself ORIGINATED (evolved, if you will) from NON-living chemicals.

There is absolutely NO proof of origins.

There is absolutely NO proof of the "Theory" of evolution. All there is is speculation about how life got here and how the diversity of life might be "explained" WITHOUT an intelligent creator CAUSING that life according to His will, design, and purpose. It is based SOLELY on the proposition that "God did NOT create because there is no God." Therefore, the "impossible" MUST have happened even if there is no proof for it because the ONLY other alternative IS GOD. Mathematically alone, there is insufficient "time" in the known universe, using the supposed age of the universe to even come close to allowing a "random chance combination of elements" to assemble in the REQUIRED order to produce even the "simplest form of life." There is just to enough matter and not enough time to allow for "random chance." And the argument, "well, it MUST have happened anyway because there IS life on earth" is NOT an answer nor is it a proof. It is, at best, a "sincere belief" that is held by someone who WILL NOT believe in the existence of God. At worst, it far less than "scientific reasoning" and is only "speculation" designed to "prove" an "unproveable" want or desire that excludes God and anything that might "break" the Laws of Science that are based on what IS "observable" today.


Quote
2. Origins have not been duplicated in the lab (though complex organic materials have been in simulated na2ural, sterile settings), but I bet they will be. 100 years ago, the artificial heart would have been unthinkable.

I'm sorry 2long, but the artificial heart you appeal to here is not sufficient, but in reality is more likely to be "proof" that evolution does NOT exist a viable answer to HOW THINGS GOT HERE. All that an artificial heart "proves" is that a "thinking, rational, purposeful, being" CREATED something that nature would not create on it's own.

This is precisely what took place in the realm of the "Origin of Life." A mess of chemicals did NOT "magically" assemble themselves into a complex, and LIVING, self-replicating, organism that then somehow "miraculously" managed to survive, reproduce, AND add information that did not exist in order to enable it to "evolve" into something different and more complex.

What DID take place is that a "Living Being" set about the "task" of creating life and USED the various chemicals according to His specific design and purpose, creating life where there had been no life. That IS the "Biogenetic Law" of the Science of Biology (i.e. Life BEGETS Life, it does NOT "spontaneously generate" from the non-living).

Furthermore, there is absolutely NO proof that the required "new and additional INFORMATION that is necessary and REQUIRED for more and more complex organisms was even possible in an undirected, unpurposeful "nature," let alone "randomly added by chance" to existing "lower forms of life."

Posted By: Marshmallow Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 12:36 PM
Quote
Perhaps there is just a difference in my literal use of faith and proof here.

Yes, I think this is part of it, if not all of it.

I don't disagree w/ most of what you have written.

I agree that faith is a gift from God. W/o it you can't see or know the truth. W/o it you won't believe what the Scriptures tell us about ourselves or about God.



Posted By: Tabby1 Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 12:41 PM
Evolution is not about the "Origin of Life", but the "Origin of Species". Nowhere did Darwin even suggest life came from chemicals - that's a completely different theory. The Origin of Species describes evolution in terms of natural selection. Species with traits that don't offer an advantage over others under the existing conditions don't compete well and die off while others thrive in their absence. Genetic changes occur with every generation in every living species - those that can survive in their location, do. This is an observable phenomenon in species with a short generation time, such as bacteria, yeasts and molds - and can even be seen in longer generation time species such as some plants.

As for fact vs. faith, I know of no religion based purely on fact (though I must say there are millions of religions that I've never even heard of). Many have fairly sound factual evidence for some, but not all of their beliefs. If you want to offer the Bible as factual proof, why not the Koran? Christ was a real person, but so was Mohammed. Jesus turned water into wine. Mohammed moved mountains. There's no concrete evidence of either of these - just historical documentation.

So who is right and who is wrong? You can only know for yourself what is right for you. As MEDC said, it's a calling that one feels on a personal level. As such, you must respect others who believe something different from you and may have felt a different calling. For Christians, this should be easy as one of the most unique and special aspects of Christ's teachings (as opposed to other religions) was to love others, even those that are not the same as you.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 01:42 PM
Quote
So who is right and who is wrong? You can only know for yourself what is right for you. As MEDC said, it's a calling that one feels on a personal level. As such, you must respect others who believe something different from you and may have felt a different calling.

Tabby, I DO respect others, as fellow beings created in the image of God. I do not, and do not "have to" respect opinions of others anymore than they have to respect my opinions.

In the arena of "debating," especially when debating "opposing" IDEAS, the most "successful" debaters are those who thoroughly understand BOTH sides of the "argument," the strengths and weaknesses of both "sides."

I grew up throughout my "formal educational years" immersed in Evolutionary thought and teaching and saw the "strengths" presented as "proven" thought and the "weaknesses" ignored or ridiculed.

When you ask, "So who is right and who is wrong?", the answer is NOT one of "both can be right." TRUTH is like that, you know. Truth cannot be both "true" and "false" at the same time. Both "models" of origins cannot be simultaneously true. For example, either God DID create, or He did not. Either we all came into being by random natural processes, or we didn't.

The same sort of reasoning applies to the idea that "evolution" first can be "limited" to ONLY AFTER life "appeared," however it appeared, and second can only offer ONE explanation for the complexity and diversity of life. Even Darwin himself was SICK about the idea of how anyone could "prove" that the EYE could "evolve."




Quote
As for fact vs. faith, I know of no religion based purely on fact (though I must say there are millions of religions that I've never even heard of). Many have fairly sound factual evidence for some, but not all of their beliefs. If you want to offer the Bible as factual proof, why not the Koran? Christ was a real person, but so was Mohammed. Jesus turned water into wine. Mohammed moved mountains. There's no concrete evidence of either of these - just historical documentation.

"If one can't have one's way, one must give in. For example, Since you can't come here for the holiday, I'll go to your house--if the mountain won't come to Muhammad, Muhammad must go to the mountain. This expression is based on a tale that Muhammad once sought proof of his teachings by ordering a mountain to come to him. When it did not move, he maintained that God had been merciful, for if it had indeed moved they all would have been crushed by it. [Late 1500s]"




Quote
There's no concrete evidence of either of these - just historical documentation.

My goodness, if Jesus had NOT turned the water into wine, perhaps he could have said that "God had been merciful, for if it had indeed been turned into wine, all the wedding guests would have been intoxicated."

But He DID turn the water into wine. The miracles performed by Jesus were NOT performed "in secret," they were open to all to see, and with respect to the wedding guest who had the best wine ever made, they would have KNOWN the difference between "grape juice" and wine or between water in the jugs instead of wine.

One of the reasons the Pharisees sought to kill Jesus was BECAUSE the miracles were known and attested to, not even the Pharisees denied them as being factual occurances.

Historical documentation of real and true events IS "concrete evidence." That is why MUCH of history is believed as being TRUE, even though we are not there, in person, to "see" it for our own eyes. That is what "eyewitness testimony" is all about also, the same as eyewitness testimony in a court of law is used to establish "truth" even though the judge and jurors were not present to "see it with their own eyes."




Quote
Many have fairly sound factual evidence for some, but not all of their beliefs. If you want to offer the Bible as factual proof, why not the Koran? Christ was a real person, but so was Mohammed.

Do they? What might some of those "facts" be for some of them?

Also, Mohammed NEVER claimed to BE God as Jesus did, and "backed up" that claim with "proofs" of His command over nature.



Quote
Evolution is not about the "Origin of Life", but the "Origin of Species". Nowhere did Darwin even suggest life came from chemicals - that's a completely different theory. The Origin of Species describes evolution in terms of natural selection. Species with traits that don't offer an advantage over others under the existing conditions don't compete well and die off while others thrive in their absence. Genetic changes occur with every generation in every living species - those that can survive in their location, do. This is an observable phenomenon in species with a short generation time, such as bacteria, yeasts and molds - and can even be seen in longer generation time species such as some plants.

I am familiar with the "Origin of Species," and the attempts to explain the diversity and complexity of life that Darwin observed.

Let me ask you a question pertaining to the idea of "natural selection" being the "cause" of increasing complexity and the differences of species? WHERE and HOW did the ADDITIONAL INFORMATION come from necessary to the existence and survival of something TOTALLY different, to say little of being much more complex, than the supposed "original specimen" undergoing this "evolutionary change" by "natural selection?"

Please understand that "natural selection" DOES occur within species, but it does NOT account for the rise of entirely new and different forms of life.

You mentioned bacteria. There are changes in bacteria, but they are STILL bacteria. How would a bacterium acquire the needed new information, and where did that information come from, in order to BECOME something other than a bacteria?

So let me "grant you" also, for the moment, that you can "Parse" evolution to ONLY apply to life AFTER it "Got Here." It STILL begs the question of HOW did life originate in the first place, to be able to undergo ANY sort of "evolution" from the simplest "original life-form" to the explosion and diversity of complex life-forms?

When the terms "creation and evolution" are used, they are used not only in the context of the diversity of life, they are used to explain a "model of origins," of HOW everything that exists, living and non-living, "got here."

That is where the terms "Creation Model" and "Evolution Model" come from.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 01:56 PM
Quote
That is what "eyewitness testimony" is all about also, the same as eyewitness testimony in a court of law is used to establish "truth" even though the judge and jurors were not present to "see it with their own eyes."

Eyewitness testimony IS used in court...BUT, any testimony that is not written down for years or decades would be laughed out of a court of law. It isn't a matter of being there to see it...it is a matter of appropriate record keeping, chain of command (who tested the "water" and then the "wine" and what were the results...). I HAVE spent considerable time in court and I can tell you first hand that the use of hearsay testimony that was written years or decades after the events took place would not be acceptable as evidence. Not even close.

Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 02:20 PM
Originally Posted by medc
Quote
That is what "eyewitness testimony" is all about also, the same as eyewitness testimony in a court of law is used to establish "truth" even though the judge and jurors were not present to "see it with their own eyes."

Eyewitness testimony IS used in court...BUT, any testimony that is not written down for years or decades would be laughed out of a court of law. It isn't a matter of being there to see it...it is a matter of appropriate record keeping, chain of command (who tested the "water" and then the "wine" and what were the results...). I HAVE spent considerable time in court and I can tell you first hand that the use of hearsay testimony that was written years or decades after the events took place would not be acceptable as evidence. Not even close.

Okay. What IS the "statute of limitations" on murder?

Are "cold cases" ever solved when evidence is obtained, even years after the fact?

And did I mention that "evidence" WAS written down by eyewitnesses and NOT by "hearsay?"

Did I mention that the written evidence was widely circulated and there was ample time for opponents to provide contradictory proof, which they did not, even though they were contemporaneous to the events in both time and place?

By the way, where is the evidence AGAINST Jesus 1)existing in time and place and, 2)against the miracles, including His resurrection from the dead?

Even Pontius Pilate KNEW and STATED that Jesus was "innocent," yet acceded to "mob rule" to "keep his position in life."

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 02:31 PM
FH, you can debate this all you want...it doesn't change the fact that these things would not come close to meeting a standard of proof required in a court of law.

You know there is no statute of limitations for murder. That isn't even remotely relevant here. The evidence to convict a person years later would be evidence found...not created years later.

The evidence was written by "eyewitnesses" years or decades later. They referenced the experience of others. that is hearsay.

Do we have evidence the blind man was in fact blind?

Do we have evidence that Lazarus was in fact dead?

Do we have direct testimony from the Roman guards?

Look, I know this stuff is true...but I will not allow myself to make up or twist history to prove a point....it is too easily argued against.

The "science" that suggests the world is millions of years old has stood up in court. The science of evolution has stood up in court. The science of creation has been shot down in court. If there existed "proof" that would withstand the scrutiny of a courtroom one would think it would have already done so.

Faith.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 02:49 PM
http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2004-12-28.htm
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 04:34 PM
Quote
FH, you can debate this all you want...it doesn't change the fact that these things would not come close to meeting a standard of proof required in a court of law.

You know there is no statute of limitations for murder. That isn't even remotely relevant here. The evidence to convict a person years later would be evidence found...not created years later.

The evidence was written by "eyewitnesses" years or decades later. They referenced the experience of others. that is hearsay.

Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paulā€¦."hearsay?" Not eyewitnesses? Not relevant to establishing truth? If you say so I guess.

You quote Hebrews 11:1 as your basic argument, but WHO was the author of Hebrews? The author is unknown, even though there are several who think Apollos may have been the author. Regardless, doesn't that also render your reliance on Hebrews 11:1 to be "hearsay" as you say?

Pontius Pilate including references to Jesus in his reports to Rome, hearsay? I guess so?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, medc, but isn't the eyewitness testimony of someone who SAW the events in question (murder, etc.) considered valid "eyewitness testimony of the facts" EVEN IF they have "kept silent for decades" and not revealed the truth of what happened until then, perhaps not even until they were on their own "death bed?"

I would also refer you to 2 Timothy 3:16 for the biblical "opinion" on all of Scripture, its veracity and its appliction to all regarding the truths that are contained in the Bible.



Quote
Do we have evidence the blind man was in fact blind? color:blue] Yes [/color]

Do we have evidence that Lazarus was in fact dead? Yes

Do we have direct testimony from the Roman guards? color:blue] Yes [/color]

Look, I know this stuff is true...but I will not allow myself to make up or twist history to prove a point....it is too easily argued against.

This seems a bit strange for you to class as "made up" or "twisted history" medc.

On what basis do you reject recorded eyewitness testimony to the facts, especially in the absence of any definitive "objection" to the recorded facts other than someone's "feeling" that they don't want to accept the testimony as factual?

Where are the written refutations by the people who WERE there at the time?

Even, as I said earlier, the Pharisees did NOT dispute the facts, they sought to "kill Christ and Christianity its cradle," as Saul (Paul) sought to do even as he was "aware of the facts" but felt he was doing "God's work" according to the desires of the Sanhedrin?

You are, apparently, challenging the historicity of the Bible, the accuracy of the Bible, and the truth contained in the Bible, especially the truths concerning Jesus. Why? On what basis do you conclude that the Bible is NOT a "reliable document" that accurately records the events that took place? Note: I am NOT asking you why you "believe" what is written in the Bible or what you have "faith in" if NOT the accurate information that is recorded in the Bible. I am simply asking you why you don't think the information IN the Bible is true testimony?


http://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/CanWeTrustTheTextOfTheBible.htm



Quote
The "science" that suggests the world is millions of years old has stood up in court. The science of evolution has stood up in court. The science of creation has been shot down in court. If there existed "proof" that would withstand the scrutiny of a courtroom one would think it would have already done so.

Now you KNOW this is not true. The "establishment" clause has been parsed to eliminate the "free expression of religion" and to ensconce "Evolution Theory" as the "religion" of the land. It has nothing to do with evolution being "proven."

Shoot go back to the original case and you'll find that the arguments used FOR evolution in the Scopes trial was based on erroneous information that was later proved to be FALSE. Did that change the ruling? No. Why? NOT because there was any science to "prove" evolution.


Now, as for the "science" you refer to, do you expect evolutionists to present evidence that would contradict their assumptions that they present as truth?

Do you think that "bias" cannot keep things from being discussed or presented? If you think that, just look around MB and see many examples of one opinion "trumping" another opinion.

Science "assumes" evolution because the alternative to evolution IS God.

But by the same token, I CAN "call into legitimate question" many of the "assumptions" of evolutionists, including the "total accuracy of dating methods" used to support the notion of evolution and "millions of years."

I CAN, for example, show scientific data that DISPROVES the dating of known magma flows wherein the "dating methods used" returned dating of thousands and millions of years, but the actual deposition of the magma is KNOWN. Throwing out anomalous data that contradicts or calls into question the "desired" evolutionary answer is routine, as is things like NOT publishing data unless it SUPPORTS the notion of evolution.

I CAN show legitimate "alternative" explanations for the very same data that an evolutionist uses to "support" evolution.

The WHY is that the "interpretation of the data" is predicated most often upon the presuppositions and biases of the "scientist." "SCIENCE" is basically neutral. The "Data" is basically neutral. It is in the "interpretation" of the data that the differences lie.

Posted By: 2long Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 04:50 PM
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
No, evolution is NOT "about how life changed over time," EVEN IF you want to ignore the fundamental evolutionary hypothesis that LIFE itself ORIGINATED (evolved, if you will) from NON-living chemicals.

This is my field, FH. You're incorrect.

Quote
There is absolutely NO proof of origins.

Which is not evolution.

Knock yourself out. I'm done here.

-ol' 2long
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 04:50 PM
Quote
You are, apparently, challenging the historicity of the Bible, the accuracy of the Bible, and the truth contained in the Bible, especially the truths concerning Jesus.

Not at all. Now you are gas-lighting. I only challenge that there is "proof" that would stand up in a courtroom. I believe the Bible to be accurate based on faith...as YOU KNOW I have said many times. I am challenging YOU...not the Bible.

Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong here, medc, but isn't the eyewitness testimony of someone who SAW the events in question (murder, etc.) considered valid "eyewitness testimony of the facts" EVEN IF they have "kept silent for decades" and not revealed the truth of what happened until then, perhaps not even until they were on their own "death bed?"

Yes, but only if their words corroborate other "concrete" information(or leads to the discovery thereof based on the new information). And their silence for years certainly diminishes their credibility in the eyes of the court.

Quote
Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paulā€¦."hearsay?" Not eyewitnesses? Not relevant to establishing truth? If you say so I guess.

That is not what I said and you know it. When they reference the experience of others, that constitutes hearsay.

Quote
You quote Hebrews 11:1 as your basic argument,

No, I don't. My basic argument is not founded in Hebrews. My basic argument is that there has been and will continue to be that there is no proof and that a foundation for a belief in Christ rests in faith. You have said or shown nothing that disproves that.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 05:02 PM
Quote
Not at all. Now you are gas-lighting. I only challenge that there is "proof" that would stand up in a courtroom. I believe the Bible to be accurate based on faith...as YOU KNOW I have said many times. I am challenging YOU...not the Bible.

That's cool. Challenge me all you want, I mean that sincerely.

As for "gaslighting," if there was, it was unintentional. Forgive my offense.

One question, if you are not challenging the Bible as the definitive proof source for God and Jesus Christ, what ARE you challenging, that a "court of law" is the measure of "truth"?

The argument has been that "eyewitness testimony" IS valid testimony for establishing the FACTS. Whether or not anyone will accept the facts and surrender their life to Christ is an entirely different matter. The argument has been made that Jesus did NOT exist a real person in history. That is the equivalent of arguments that try to reduce "Jesus" to "just some myth" and not a real person.

He existed, proven by both biblical and extrabiblical sources. That WOULD, I would think, "stand up in court."

Is THAT Jesus the the Son of God, the Messiah, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world? That is a "faith" question based upon the testimony of what that man, Jesus, actually DID while he was on the earth.

Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 05:16 PM
Quote
This is my field, FH. You're incorrect.

hmmm...I would respectfully disagree, 2long. Your "field" as I understand it from what you have previously said is Geology, not Biology.

My "field," if you will is Biology, at least that's what my degree says.

If you want to claim that a particular rock that I might be holding is an igneous or sedimentary rock, knock yourself out. I would "bow" to your expertise in that area.

But the study of rocks is NOT the same thing as the study of living organisms.



Quote
Which is not evolution.

Knock yourself out. I'm done here.

That's fine, 2long. As I said previously, no one must participate in any discussion that they don't want to participate in.

However, "ORIGINS" of LIFE is most definitely "evolution" not matter how much evolutionists don't want to admit it, presumably because it presents and insurmountable obstacle TO the entire concept of "natural processes being the CAUSE of everything, living and non-living."

To be precise, it is the "evolution of life from NON-life," the "evolving of a mass of chemicals into a living, self-replicating organism as the FIRST "evolved" thing, evolving past DEAD to ALIVE.

If THAT isn't the "first" "hopeful monster" of "Punctuated Equilibrium," then what IS it? And how did this hopeful monster "evolve" into every other living thing with NO mechanism for the creation and transfer of VITAL and NECESSARY information into the genetic structure of that first "hopeful monster," especially with NO "living, thinking, purposeful design, Creator" to "see to it that the required information was both available AND successfully incorportated into thath "hopeful monster" and all subsequent "hopeful monsters" preceding more complex organisms?
Posted By: Greengables Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 05:19 PM
Quote:I'm with medc on this one. Outside the Bible, there is no proof of his existence. Again, that doesn't mean that he didn't exist, just that his existence hasn't been independently proven.

Again, this is a false statement. I guess I will have to list some "extrabiblical" citations of his existence as a real person in history.

FH, when I said there was not proof of his existence, I meant God's not Jesus. Without a doubt there is proof that Jesus lived. There is also proof of Mohammet, Rama, who was if I recall correctly, the god Krisha in human form, the Sidhartha, and others. Therefore, although Jesus walked the earth, there is no more evidence that Jesus was Son of God, then that Mohammet was the true prophet, that Rama was Krisha, etc.

It comes down to faith and belief,.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 05:35 PM
Quote
One question, if you are not challenging the Bible as the definitive proof source for God and Jesus Christ, what ARE you challenging, that a "court of law" is the measure of "truth"?

Not at all. I disagree with much that the courts say and do. O.J. Simpson! Abortion, etc.

I Do believe that based on historical records that Jesus existed. I KNOW based on faith that He is the Son of God. As for what He did while here on earth, I truly wish that the record keeping had been better (not more accurate...just better) and more timely. That would allow for the proof this world so badly seems to need.

Me, I rely on faith thanks to His call to my heart.
Posted By: Greengables Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 06:39 PM
Do you think the world really needs proof, medoc?

I don't think so in the end. There is something about taking the leap of faith that opens our hearts. If proof would help the situation, I bet God would have sent Christ down here robed in all the glory of Heaven to proof to us.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 06:46 PM
Well, Iraq, Georgia, Dar fur, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, murder, rape, warfare...
yes, I suggest that the world would do well to have proof.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 07:13 PM
Quote
I Do believe that based on historical records that Jesus existed. I KNOW based on faith that He is the Son of God. As for what He did while here on earth, I truly wish that the record keeping had been better (not more accurate...just better) and more timely. That would allow for the proof this world so badly seems to need.

I don't necessarily disagree with this either. There is a part of me that would say, "Gee, wouldn't it be neat if everyone back then had cameras, camera phones, "video news at 11," etc.

But all they had was the written Word, which was how God chose to communicate with us and reveal His truth to us. By way of inspiration, not dictation, He used the people who wrote the Scriptures to express and communicate what He wanted communicated, while leaving their "writing style" up to them.

I also understand and agree with what you said about the existence of Jesus. THAT is the sort of proof that I referred to as "courtroom proof." In addition, I also believe that eyewitness testimony to the miracles He perform as "proofs" of the claims He made about Himself are also "evidence" that is "courtroom admissable."

Conclusions as to the "Messiah-ship" of Jesus, of the existence of God who has control over the physcial world ARE matters of faith. Even if, and I think it could be established by the testimonies, that certain miracles actually took place, there is nothing that says anyone "has to," or even would, accept their reality as a reason to surrender their lives to God through Christ Jesus. In that sense it's sort of like "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," or as Jesus put it,

"The Jews gathered around him, saying, "how long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these fo you stone me?"

"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:24-33, NIV, emphasis added)

The proof was there. The proof was presented. The Jews did NOT deny the proof, rather they accepted the proof. But they CHOSE to not accept Jesus for who He is and who He said He is. Instead, they chose reject regardless of the proof.

That IS what the Scripture says is the fundamental basis for belief in Christ, to not deny the miracles that proved who He was and is, but to "convict the world" of those choosing to NOT believe in spite of the proof.

As the Law (10 Commandments) convicted all of humanity that no one was without sin, the miracles, performed in public for all to see, "convict" those who CHOOSE to reject Christ in spite of all the evidence.

God softens the hearts of man to hear, and God warns us to not turn away and reject Christ. He calls us to "accept and believe."

WHAT we accept is crucial, because it can only be what God has determined to meet HIS "criteria" for granting forgiveness of sin.

In the end, God HAS provided "enough" proof and is not required to provide "more." That is a major reason why the Scriptures have been faithfully preserved over the years.



Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 07:20 PM
Quote
Well, Iraq, Georgia, Dar fur, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, murder, rape, warfare...
yes, I suggest that the world would do well to have proof.

And they all have it. It's called the Holy Bible.


Interestingly enough, I just heard a news report and watched the interview of the son of the Hamas leader in Palestine who has renounced Islam, embraced Christianity, and left the Gaza area and his family to live in America.

Now how much do you want to bet that there will be an effort to kill him as an infidel for "converting" from Islam to Christianity?

Just one "little" difference. I can't say I know of any Christians who would kill someone for "leaving Christianity" for any other faith (just ask 2long), let alone try to kill someone just because they refuse to believe in Jesus Christ.

Now that son's action takes some REAL faith and believe, to say nothing of courage. He has said that they CAN kill his body, but they cannot kill his soul.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 09:01 PM
Quote
I can't say I know of any Christians who would kill someone for "leaving Christianity" for any other faith

not today...but certainly in the very colored and questionsbale past this was not the case.


Quote
And they all have it. It's called the Holy Bible.

It is only a book without faith. It does not constitute proof.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/11/08 09:18 PM
Quote
I also believe that eyewitness testimony to the miracles He perform as "proofs" of the claims He made about Himself are also "evidence" that is "courtroom admissable."

they're not(and courtroom experience would make that more clear to you). The writings documenting these things happened too long after the fact. The lack of OBJECTIVE and verifiable witnesses to the events in question cast doubt upon their veracity for some.

Again, I have asked some real questions here. Who was the blind man? What evidence do we have that he was in fact blind? Who tested him? What doctor certified the death of Lazarus? Who examined the bottles of water before they were turned to wine? Did anyone else have access to them? We were the events not written about for so long? What is the testimony of the Roman soldiers? What is their credibility? Who else had access to the tomb? Who pronounced Jesus dead in the first place? Why did Jesus only appear to those close to Him?

So on and so on.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/12/08 01:02 PM
Quote
they're not(and courtroom experience would make that more clear to you). The writings documenting these things happened too long after the fact. The lack of OBJECTIVE and verifiable witnesses to the events in question cast doubt upon their veracity for some.

Spoken like a true defense attorney for the guilty, I guess. However it matters not what you or I would think in a courtroom, it only matters what the jury would think, and most of them have never spent much time in a courtroom either. By your reasoning here, NO person or events of historical importance should be accepted as accurate, especially with the lack of "OJBECTIVE and verifiable WITNESSES" to the events in question. "Casting doubt upon their veracity for some is NOT a "standard." There will ALWAYS be "doubters," for a variety of reasons. Why should ANY person or events of history, attested to by a paucity of proofs and usually loooong after the events be accepted as true, using this same logic?

But I disagree with you. The Word of God IS truth, and just as there were many Jews who "doubted" the veracity of the 10 Commandments, there will be many who "doubt" the veracity of the eyewitness testimony of Jesus. That doesn't matter, we, who do believe in Jesus Chrsist, are COMMANDED by God to BE His witnesses. WHAT we witness about is NOT just "our feelings," but it is also what is said about Jesus, what HE did, and WHY He did it. That is the TRUTH, and whether or not anyone else "doubts" it is irrelevant. God WILL work in the hearts of those who hear, who are those He HAS CHOSEN since the beginning of time to BE His, and WE don't know who they are. All we KNOW is that WE are supposed to be, as His Servants, obedient to all of His commands.



Quote
Again, I have asked some real questions here. Who was the blind man? What evidence do we have that he was in fact blind? Who tested him?

The evidence of eyewitnesses who were there, including the Pharisees who refused to believe that Jesus performed the miracle. That the man had been blind from birth was WELL KNOWN as WHERE he was was where he had been every day, the "gathering place for the infirm and the general thought of the Jews was that his blindness was a "punishment from God" for some sin. They did NOT deny or doubt that the miracle HAD BEEN performed, they just didn't want to attribute it to Jesus.

Quote
What doctor certified the death of Lazarus?

You are joking, right? The people were VERY familiar with death and Lazarus had been in the tomb for several days. Have you ever seen someone die, or come upon a dead body after death? I have, many many times. It does NOT take a doctor to know someone is dead. Nor was a doctor required to "certify" that someone, like Jesus Himself, WAS dead. You are attempting to apply "today's" methods to methods in use "back then." I think it would be fairly easy to "prove" to a jury that someone was dead versus alive...a cadaver would would work just fine...and they could decide for themselves, with no doctor "certification," that some was "really, truly, most sincerely dead."

Quote
Who examined the bottles of water before they were turned to wine? Did anyone else have access to them?

IF you don't have access to a Bible to see for yourself the answers to these questions, then let me make it clear. The servants of the HOST of the wedding part not only "examined" the jugs of water, they FILLED the jugs with water themselves and neither Jesus nor any disciple (this was His FIRST miracle, his "coming out" miracle if you will) ever touched the jugs.

You must not believe the miracles of Jesus actually happened to take this sort of approach to diminishing the truth of them. TRUTH is NOT dependent upon the "opinion of man." OUR "job," as believers, is to proclaim the truth, not to decide for someone else who might be a "hearer of the truth," what is and what is not "truth" or "worthy of standing for and presenting that truth." If you "believe the miracles simply because you 'have to' because you consider yourself a believer, then why the hesitancy to proclaim the truth that God has revealed even if you "dobut" the imperative of His command to "Go and make disciples," to "proclaim the truth to the uttermost parts of the earth?"

Quote
We (why?) were the events not written about for so long?

Because the letters were written to the churches, the churches that were not yet even in existence when the apostles BEGAN their witnessing. The people had the ORAL EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY of the apostles, the written testimony about the Messiah in the Scripture, and the beginnings of heresy and "false doctrine" beginning to infiltrate many churches that had been established in the apostles journeys. The apostles also knew that they, themselves, would not "live forever" and wrote down the events and instructions to "outlive them" for those who would come after they were no longer around.

Quote
What is the testimony of the Roman soldiers? What is their credibility? Who else had access to the tomb?

medc, it would seem from these questions that you may have little understanding of just what a Roman Guard was, and what were the Severe Rules concerning any soldier who was "on guard duty." Consider the idiocy of the Jewish leader who wanted to posit the idea that the guards were sleeping on duty and the disciples came and stole the body of Jesus. The tomb was sealed by Roman seal. The tomb was covered by a Huge stone, highly unlikely to be a "silent stone" if moved. This "conspiracy theory" you are asking about is no different from what the Jewish leaders tried to propose. And if there WAS no resurrection, and if there WAS no appearances by Jesus AFTER He was resurrected, then your questions might have some merit. The "empty tomb" is HUGE proof of the veracity of the resurrenction and not an excuse to NOT witness to the FACT of the resurrection.

Quote
Who pronounced Jesus dead in the first place?

Oh come on, medc! Have your read the Bible? Can you read? I am sure you have and that you can, so what IS the purpose of your question other than to cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible, to call into question its reliablity AS the Word of God that contains TRUTH, not falsehood?

But to "cut you some slack here," the one who "pronounced Jesus dead in the first place" was Jesus Himself, and God the Father. "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!" (Matthew 27:50-54 NIV, emphasis added)

AND,

"Jesus called out in a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46 NIV)

AND,

"Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph." (Mark 15:44-45 NIV, emphasis added)

medc, in answer to your earlier questions about "what doctor certified the death, and "What is the testimony of the Roman soldiers? What is their credibility?", the "doctor of death," the Roman Centurion testified to Pilate that Jesus was "really, truly, most sincerely dead." Why? Because he was intimately acquainted with DEATH, dead people. What else is their credibility? The sentence of death hung over his head for lieing, for dereliction of his duty.

"But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe." (John 19:33-35 NIV, emphasis added)

Quote
Why did Jesus only appear to those close to Him?

First, because: "As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." (John 20:21 NIV) That was the reason, to PROVE to them that he was NO "ghost" because He was sending them to testify to the world about Him and He wanted to remove ALL doubt from their minds that He WAS, and IS, the Messiah, the Lamb who takes away the sins of the word.

"On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord." (John 20:19-20 NIV) medc, WHAT "peace" was with them? What "peace" was Jesus giving to his disciples and WHY? (read Luke 24:36-53 and Mark 16:15-16 and Matthew 28:19-20 and Acts 1:1-3 for a more expanded answer.

Quote
So on and so on.

And why do you suppose Jesus has not appeared to you, medc?

WHERE is it written that eyewitness testimony, immediately written down, written down after a short while, written down after a few years, written down after decades BY the eyewitness or recorded by other intimately familiar with the testimony of the eyewitness IS NOT to be accepted AS eyewitness testimony for the purposes of establishing the truth of the events under examination?

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for all the books that would be written." (John 21:24-25 NIV)

"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presences of his disciples, which are recorded not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31 NIV, emphasis added)

And that is the "so on and so on" of the eyewitness testimony to "fulfill the Great Commission" after they were gone from life on Earth.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/12/08 01:36 PM
FH, you are once again playing a game that I refuse to participate in. When you cannot discuss things in an intelligent fashion, you resort to twisting a persons position.

Quote
so what IS the purpose of your question other than to cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible


I DO NOT doubt the miracles or veracity of the stories in the Bible. I have stated that clearly numerous times.

What I have said, and will say for the last time is that these things do NOT rise to a level of proof. You can disagree all you want, but you have helped prove my point by failing to provide even 1 smidgen of objective, verifiable proof. It simply does not exist. That is why FAITH is the key.

Telling me that the Roman guard stated that he was surely dead means nothing. Who was the guard? Was he bribed (after all his credibility is suspect at best)...every single thing you mentioned requires faith. Do I believe Christ died on the cross and was risen from the dead. Yep...I know it based on faith...not solely on words written years or decades after the fact.


If proof existed, some very smart people...with good hearts...would be open to it. The fact is...proof does not exist today (hopefully that changes) and the call...the touch from God is what will bring people to Him. Your fact based arguments are full of holes that leave room for debate and doubt. Faith is the cure for that.

IMHO, those that rely too heavily on proof are really a bit weak in their faith. I do not feel the need to prove any of this to a non-believer. I have faith and that is sufficient.


Posted By: rprynne Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/12/08 02:21 PM
For the life of me, I can't figure out what the purpose of this debate is.

If FH "wins" and MEDC says "yes, that is proof", will MEDC's belief in Jesus be any stronger?

If MEDC "wins" and FH says "yes, there is no proof", will FH's belief in Jesus be any weaker?
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/12/08 02:52 PM
Quote
For the life of me, I can't figure out what the purpose of this debate is.

If FH "wins" and MEDC says "yes, that is proof", will MEDC's belief in Jesus be any stronger?

If MEDC "wins" and FH says "yes, there is no proof", will FH's belief in Jesus be any weaker?

It's not about "winning and losing," rprynne.

MEDC has his feelings about "proof" and why or why not he might stand on that proof and how it may or may not affect his speaking to others about what he believes and knows to be true.

I, also, have my own feelings and thoughts about these things and we have "differences of opinions" about some things.

But make no mistake about it, we both believe that Jesus IS the Messiah, the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, the incarnate Son of God, the second person of the Trinity.

It the end, one of the purposes of discussing differences of opinions is to understand the other person's opinion and what it is found on. Another purpose is so that others who might happen to read the discussion can "weigh things" for themselves and decide for themselves what makes sense to them. Yet another purpose is an obedience to the Great Commission and obedience to the directive to "be ready to give an answer for the faith that is in you."

It really is not a "debate" in the sense you seem to be using it.

This really started with the premise that there is "no irrefutable proof." My contention has been all along that THE most "irrefutable" of all the proofs is the Empty Tomb, the Resurrected Christ.

That anyone can, and many do, reject the proofs is not the issue. The proof, because it is TRUTH, stands before all people regardless of whether or not they want to accept it.

MEDC "argues" whether or not people accept the proofs based on his understanding of "election," as do I, but it is not for any of us to try to determine in advance who the "elect" are nor is it for any of us to "tolerate" beliefs that are contrary to the proofs provided by God to us without "challenging" those beliefs. It is NOT that "all faiths are are good as any other," nor is it we "love our neighbor" by NOT telling them about the only true gate by which God will forgive our sins, because the objective is not "the here and now," the objective is eternity and where each person WILL spend eternity, regardless of any "sincere belief" in whatever they happen to believe.

That is the essence of truth and that is the essence of love for others who are created in the image of God, even if they don't believe in God or believe in something other than the truth as it has been given to us by God.

MEDC can speak for himself, but those are my thoughts in answer to your question.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/12/08 03:25 PM
Quote
It's not about "winning and losing," rprynne.

I would have thought this myself as well UNTIL the twisting of my very clearly stated positions becomes the norm. When you flat out say that it is my intention to call into question the veracity of the Bible, it is time to step away from this. I clearly stated all along what my beliefs were and said that I know them to be true based upon God's call to my heart. Faith. I also clearly stated that His call would allow others to see THE truth despite a lack of existing proof.

I could not have made the points any more clear. A few here have chosen to twist what I have said because they feel that absent proof our faith is weak. FAITH will NEVER require proof.

I no longer see any purpose in this discussion. I appreciate the time everyone has taken to discuss this topic.

Time to get back to the purpose of the board.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/12/08 04:22 PM
Quote
I would have thought this myself as well UNTIL the twisting of my very clearly stated positions becomes the norm.

I'm sorry you feel that way, medc. Your "stated position" has been very clear and never in doubt. The discussion has, and I suppose always will be, WHY does anyone believe what they believe.


Quote
When you flat out say that it is my intention to call into question the veracity of the Bible, it is time to step away from this.

No, your intention seemed clear enough, "there are no irrefutable proofs." That is the concept that was being discussed. YOU "called into question the veracity" of the biblical writers, the veracity of man born blind, the veracity of the miracles. All I did was ask you on what basis do you NOT think the Bible provides PROOF as to who Jesus is, or for that matter WHO YOU believe in and why should you believe that what was said about Jesus IS true and should be accepted by you or by anyone else.

"FAITH" as you have used it can easily be applied to "any sincere belief." That alone does NOT give any reason why what any one individual, you, me, or anyone else, "believes by faith" is actually TRUE. What you believe about Jesus Christ is NOT true simply because you "believe it" or have "faith in it." It is TRUE because God says it is true, and God even provided PROOF of who Jesus is and proof of what He claimed to be.



Quote
I clearly stated all along what my beliefs were and said that I know them to be true based upon God's call to my heart.

And God's 'call to your heart' was to believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world. He IS that and He is also LORD to those who are called to Him. AS Lord, He also commands us to be His witnesses, not to "passively" say something like; "Well, I received mine, now it's solely up to God to give you yours. I am not required by God to be obedient to His command to "Go" or to "stand ready to tell others WHAT you believe and WHY you believe in Jesus Christ."


Quote
Faith. I also clearly stated that His call would allow others to see THE truth despite a lack of existing proof.

I disagree with a part of this statement. You cannot "divorce" the proofs we have talked about; i.e., the miracles, the resurrection of Christ from the dead, etc.; from WHAT it is that God calls His elect to accept. FAITH cometh by hearing, and hearing by the WORD of GOD. That is the clear statement of the Bible.



Quote
I could not have made the points any more clear. A few here have chosen to twist what I have said because they feel that absent proof our faith is weak. FAITH will NEVER require proof.

No one has "twisted" what you have said, medc. What you have said has been clearly stated and comments offered regarding those statements. IF "Faith will NEVER require proof," then the Apostles needed no appearance and further teaching from Jesus. Thomas needed no physical contact with Jesus. They WERE all CALLED by God TO BE Jesus' disciples. Extending your reasoning to the actions taken BY Jesus, then Jesus Himself stands as "unnecessary" and "not needed" by anyone. It is NOT about "faith," it is about the object of that faith...Jesus Christ...and WHY He is THE ONE who is God the Son and the Savior of the World for all who believe He is and who accept Him as their personal Lord and Savior.

You and I cannot, it would seem, "divorce" faith from proof, or else Jesus would NEVER have worked a miracle or presented Himself post resurrection to His disciples, who were ALREADY His disciples,

"While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled." [Yet another "proof" of Scripture.] I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more that I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be sanctified. My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (John 17:12-16 NIV, emphasis added)



Quote
I no longer see any purpose in this discussion. I appreciate the time everyone has taken to discuss this topic.


I too appreciated the discussion. And no one requires you to participate in any discussion that you see no purpose in participating in.



Quote
Time to get back to the purpose of the board.

By all means. The purpose of this forum is for "Other Topics" of General Discussion.

If you are referring to offering opinions and possibly some help to others suffering from infidelity, by all means do so. It try to do both, but time is limited and I do understand that.

Thanks for your discussion participation.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/12/08 08:20 PM
Quote
That is the concept that was being discussed. YOU "called into question the veracity" of the biblical writers, the veracity of man born blind, the veracity of the miracles.

I did NO SUCH THING. I do stand by my assessment that the Bible does not offer proof... BUT...and please pay attention, THAT DOES NOT MEAN I QUESTION THE ACCURACY OF WHAT THE BIBLE(or its authors) STATES. Once again, I am able to KNOW that the Bible is truth (therefore I do not question the veracity of the book) based on my faith.

So, yes, my words were and continue to be twisted.

As for being a witness to God's love, FH, I do that every single day of my life. And I do it without offending people or pushing them further from God.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/15/08 10:45 AM
Quote
I do stand by my assessment that the Bible does not offer proof... BUT...and please pay attention, THAT DOES NOT MEAN I QUESTION THE ACCURACY OF WHAT THE BIBLE(or its authors) STATES. Once again, I am able to KNOW that the Bible is truth (therefore I do not question the veracity of the book) based on my faith.


As for being a witness to God's love, FH, I do that every single day of my life. And I do it without offending people or pushing them further from God.

medc, I don't doubt that for one minute.

Let me ask you a question then;


If an unbeliever asks you WHY he should consider accepting Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, what would you tell him in response to his question that would give him an answer to his question and a reason to surrender his life to Christ?

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/15/08 02:11 PM
I would tell him what I believe and WHY. I would make it very clear that my faith is based on well, faith. I would invite him to come to a service and pray with and for him if he was open to that.
I would also suggest that he search his heart and ask himself WHY he is questioning me. What brought this up in him?
See, I don't believe that people (unless they are being antagonistic) will really search out answers of faith unless the Lord is already working in their heart.
I can tell you what I would NEVER say to someone....here's the "proof" that Jesus is God. Here's the "proof" the Bible is correct.
As I have said numerous times, it leaves open too many places for intelligent counter arguments. I am a believer and have NEVER been convinced of "proof." Most of the other believers I know feel the same way. Try reaching a non-believer that way and IMHO, most will tune you out.
Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/16/08 12:08 PM
Quote
I would tell him what I believe and WHY. I would make it very clear that my faith is based on well, faith. I would invite him to come to a service and pray with and for him if he was open to that.

I would also suggest that he search his heart and ask himself WHY he is questioning me. What brought this up in him?
See, I don't believe that people (unless they are being antagonistic) will really search out answers of faith unless the Lord is already working in their heart.

A good answer. WHAT *I* believe and WHY *I* believe it.



Quote
I can tell you what I would NEVER say to someone....here's the "proof" that Jesus is God. Here's the "proof" the Bible is correct.
As I have said numerous times, it leaves open too many places for intelligent counter arguments. I am a believer and have NEVER been convinced of "proof." Most of the other believers I know feel the same way. Try reaching a non-believer that way and IMHO, most will tune you out.

And when they tell you that the person you call Jesus DID NOT really exist and is just an "imaginary" person or a "mythical figure," removing the FACT of that person really, truly, existing as a "Person of History," is proof offered or not?

The "proof(s)", or at least the personal acceptance, of His claims to BE the Son of God and the Savior of the World are a matter of faith in their truth and veracity.

I would then talk about Saul who was an "atheist," if you will, with respect to Jesus and the "Christian" belief. He was a "zealot" in his denial and in his actions to deny what he considered to be a "false belief." THAT sort of person does not "change his mind" without concrete, verifiable, proof. Yet he DID change his mind and spent the rest of his life telling people WHAT and WHY he changed his mind and accepted Jesus as the Christ.

I would also talk about the FACT that there are only TWO ways that life began on earth. One is by random "natural processes" wherein NO "god" or "supreme being" was, or is still, involved. The other is by a purposeful act of creation BY a supreme being who MADE things according to His will and for His purpose.

Since neither condition of how things came to BE is "reproducable" in the lab, anyone MUST accept either scenario based on "faith," not on proof. Yet one of the two scenarios MUST also be TRUE and the other must be FALSE, because life DOES exist. Examining the "circumstantial evidence" for both scenarios (the available "facts" if you will) lends or takes away credence from the interpretations of those facts. That's no different than what happens in a court of law. The evidence is presented and "weight" is given to the evidence, sometimes by the "preponderance" of the evidence and sometimes by showing how the very same evidence has more than one credible interpretation.

100% "certainty" is rarely achieved. Many times the "most reasonable interpretation" is used. Sometimes, even the "most reasonable interpretation" is found to be false because the "underlying assumptions" used are shown to be "not true in all cases." That's part of the problem with using "physical laws" and "observations of how nature is" today to try to "prove" that evolution, rather than creation and the existence of God, is "the truth."

Still, either evolution (including how life began) or creation IS true. Truth will not change and it is not dependent upon OUR interpretations or "wishes." The "evidence" that supports God and creation over evolution and natural processes is, admittedly in my opinion, overwhelmingly in favor of God and creation. In addition, as more and more scientific advances are made, more and more "evidence" is accumulated to support God and creation rather than evolution and natural processes. "Uniformitarian" ideas are already crumbling as more and more scientific DATA is accumulated. The effects of "catastrophism" are more and more becoming accepted (while still choosing to deny a "univeral catastrophic event" such as the Flood of Noah). Yet catastrophism in any form causes big problems for Linean Uniformitarianism that is the BASIS for most of "evolutionary" opinion.

Lastly, the "Evidence" of the "Empty Tomb" is easy to simply "deny." But WHERE is any proof, in opposition to "sworn eyewitness testimony to the veracity of the resurrection of Jesus, that it DID NOT occur? There is none, other than opinion. NO facts, no evidence, merely a CHOICE to deny the actual evidence. People frequently say something like "prove to me that Jesus really did rise from the dead." I would, in a similar manner, ask them to "prove that He did NOT rise from the dead" as was predicted BEFORE His death?

Once more it is back to the REAL historical (provable) person of Jesus and whether or not He WAS who He said He was. The questions of the "Trilema" apply here in much the same way that the questions of "Origins" apply.

"Acceptance" is up to each individual, but the truth will not change based solely upon "opinion" or what someone may acknowledge but still refuse to embrace as truth.
Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/16/08 01:29 PM
Quote
is proof offered or not?

there is no proof.


Quote
But WHERE is any proof,

sorry FH, it doesn't work that way. f there is to be PROOF of these things, the burden falls on those making the claims of deity.
I have spoken numerous times about the problems regarding the "testimony." Sworn???

The fact that it was predicted BEFORE his death could add fuel to those that believe this is all a big hoax. An outline was written and those that believed it conspired to make it appear true. The story of the empty tomb is easy to make when no real evidence need be provided(what you see as evidence, I do not. Based on my time in law enforcement, I think I have a pretty good handle on evidence and what would be acceptable in court or stand up to reason without faith). FAITH...a belief in that which cannot be proven.

The FACT that there is no verifiable proof of God will not change because you do not accept it. I sincerely hope that changes tomorrow...I'm ready. But for today, I am sorry, you continue to re-wrap the same present and it isn't proof.

Quote
I would also talk about the FACT that there are only TWO ways that life began on earth.


or perhaps there are a lot of things we fail to understand based on the limits of science and our intellect. We shall see!


Posted By: ForeverHers Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/17/08 05:56 AM


Quote
Context of the parsed question below:
And when they tell you that the person you call Jesus DID NOT really exist and is just an "imaginary" person or a "mythical figure," removing the FACT of that person really, truly, existing as a "Person of History," is proof offered or not?


Quote
FH question quoted by MEDC: is proof offered or not?

MEDC response: there is no proof.


Okay, perhaps there was some misunderstanding of the question. The question pertained ONLY to the real existence in history of the person known as Jesus. The question did not pertain to what he did (i.e. miracles) or who he claimed to be (i.e., the Messiah, the Son of God, the Second person of the Triune God).

I thought you had already agreed that proof of his existence was there to prove that the person Jesus of Nazareth did actually exist and was not a "myth" or an imaginary "legend."

I based that assumption on your previous post:
Quote
I Do believe that based on historical records that Jesus existed.


I KNOW based on faith that He is the Son of God. As for what He did while here on earth, I truly wish that the record keeping had been better (not more accurate...just better) and more timely. That would allow for the proof this world so badly seems to need.

Me, I rely on faith thanks to His call to my heart.


Quote
The FACT that there is no verifiable proof of God will not change because you do not accept it. I sincerely hope that changes tomorrow...I'm ready. But for today, I am sorry, you continue to re-wrap the same present and it isn't proof.

Okay, we seem to be talking about two different types of proof here. You seem to want to want to call anything that is NOT "provable" your standards of "acceptable proof in present day court of law" as something that cannot be taken as "proof", thereby consigning belief in anything that does not meet the criteria of "courtroom proof" to an "opinion" or a "faith" in something "unproven."

But I am talking about both types of proof. I am talking about the same sort of proof you want (i.e. the existence of the person Jesus as a real person) AND the type of proof that is not "quantifiable" in a laboratory. That second sort of proof is what you seem to want to "relegate" to "faith" in order for it to be accepted. Unquestionably, the acceptance by someone of what the testimony about Jesus states IS a matter of faith, but it is also predicated on what has been said about and testified to concerning WHO that historical person actually was.

IF this real live person Jesus made certain claims, and certain claims were made about him, what "evidence," "hearsay" or other, is there that supports or refutes those claims?


Quote
If there is to be PROOF of these things, the burden falls on those making the claims of deity.
I have spoken numerous times about the problems regarding the "testimony." Sworn???

Sworn??? I guess the closest you will come to that is Jesus' trial before Pontius Pilate. The "testimonies" of those accusers against Jesus "presented their case" and Pilate found Jesus innocent of the charges.

"The Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."

"Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death." (Luke 23:4, 13-15)

Now this trial had nothing to do, in Pilate's eyes, with any claim of being God, it had to do with the Roman rules and laws. The Jews knew that Jesus had made such a claim, as they confirmed in their questioning of him. And, just like today in many courts, they knew that they could not get the "court" to impose the death penalty for a "religious" reason, but they could charge him with offenses against Roman law, and that is what they did in order to get him the death penalty for the real "offense" against them, his claim to be the Son of God.

"At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. "If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us." Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips." (Luke 22:66-71)



Is there "proof" that OJ killed his wife? Not according to the jurors of the criminal trial, but "yes" according to the civil trial. Circumstantial evidence was presented, but no "proof." Yet even though the evidence apparently failed to meet the "legal test" of "beyond a reasonable doubt, there are still a large number of people who "believe" that OJ WAS guilty of the murders despite the "finding" of the jury in the criminal trial.

The testimony and the evidence are there. The conclusions made by individuals are different.

Such is the case with what you want to label "hearsay" and "inadmissible." If it's "inadmissible," then it cannot be used to tell someone why they should believe it. If it is "admissible," then the individuals can consider it and reach their own conclusions about the veracity or falsity of the information and arrive at a "verdict" concerning Jesus for themselves.

You say that "the burden falls on those making the claims of deity." Okay, those claims were recorded, as well as the understanding of those claims and their being the basis of the Jews handing Jesus over to Pilate for "capital punishment," which was a power that had been taken away from the Jews by the Romans.

"Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. "I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said." When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is that any way to answer the high priest?" he demanded. "If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" (John 18:19-23)

It is interesting that even Pilate recognized this issue of what IS truth when he listened to Jesus;

"Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying that I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him." (John 18: 36-38, emphasis added)


I suppose you may think that you have the definitive word on what a judge might allow as evidence, but the judge determines the admissibility of evidence and many times one "side" has argued that some evidence should be "inadmissible" while the other side argues for it to be "admissible" as evidence. Sometimes a judge rules "admissible," and the relevance of the information to the case.

In this case, the Jews did NOT "argue" for Jesus' death on the basis of his claim to deity. They WOULD have done that if THEY still retained the power of "life and death" decisions. But they didn't, and they KNEW that the Romans could care less if someone thought they were a "god." So they concocted a story of offenses against Roman law and presented that case, and they LOST their case.


Quote
The fact that it was predicted BEFORE his death could add fuel to those that believe this is all a big hoax. An outline was written and those that believed it conspired to make it appear true. The story of the empty tomb is easy to make when no real evidence need be provided(what you see as evidence, I do not.

NOW you want to use modern rules to "exclude" eyewitness testimony about what was really important concerning Jesus' presence on Earth? Never mind the fact the disciples ALL (with one probable exception) went to their deaths for a "concocted conspiracy?" Never mind that Paul was an ardent OPPONENT of Christ and Christianity and was on his way to Damascus to persecute more Christians when he had a complete reversal of his belief concerning Jesus Christ.

This "hoax" theory has been around for a long time. There is no evidence of a hoax, especially if you apply your stated requirement for "proof" of a hoax.

But again, when someone asks why you believe in Jesus instead of some other person or some other "god," what do you tell them if NOT what has been presented by John and the other writers of Scripture. As John said, "these things are written so that you WILL believe."

Take away the "writings," and what do you have left to "testify" about?"


Quote
The FACT that there is no verifiable proof of God will not change because you do not accept it. I sincerely hope that changes tomorrow...I'm ready.

It WILL change, and it COULD be as early as today or tomorrow. But then it will be "too late" for proof of the sort you are "requiring."

"Faith cometh by hearing." What IS IT that is "heard" if NOT the Word of God, inerrant and true? "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man shall open the door, I will come in and sit down with him." Who IS this person that "knocks" and "comes in?" "He that believeth in me shall have eternal life." Who IS this "me?" What makes believing in him the basis for eternal life?



Quote
or perhaps there are a lot of things we fail to understand based on the limits of science and our intellect. We shall see!

Undoubtedly there ARE a lot of things that we "fail to understand," but HOW life began is NOT one of them. There ARE only TWO possibilities, God or Natural Physical Processes without any design or purpose.

Evolutionists will claim they don't know HOW life originated, but they are certain it was NOT a creative act by God.

Now THAT would seem to be conclusion based on FAITH, even "sincere faith" in the case of an atheist, but inadmissible in court as "evidence" as it is solely an opinion not based in anything verifiable. All attempts to "create life" from non-life have FAILED, and "even if" some scientist somewhere DID manage to create "life" from a soup of chemicals, all it would prove is that it took an intelligence to "manipulate" a desired result, not that random chance could ever do it all by itself.

Posted By: medc Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/17/08 01:42 PM
Quote
I thought you had already agreed that proof of his existence was there to prove that the person Jesus of Nazareth did actually exist and was not a "myth" or an imaginary "legend."

I did. So, if THAT was the purpose of the question, why are you asking it again? It has NOTHING to do with a person accepting God into their lives. No one questions the existence of Mohamed either...that doesn't prove anything beyond that he was a man.


Quote
Is there "proof" that OJ killed his wife? Not according to the jurors of the criminal trial, but "yes" according to the civil trial. Circumstantial evidence was presented, but no "proof." Yet even though the evidence apparently failed to meet the "legal test" of "beyond a reasonable doubt, there are still a large number of people who "believe" that OJ WAS guilty of the murders despite the "finding" of the jury in the criminal trial.

It simply isn't true that proof wasn't offered. There was. It was, however, made irrelevant because of other factors.


Quote
There is no evidence of a hoax, especially if you apply your stated requirement for "proof" of a hoax.

I didn't say there was. I said "COULD."


FH, respectfully, your points are not doing anything to sway me here. In fact, I think you are just providing fuel for those that want to deny God. Inasmuch, I am not going to be party to this discussion any longer. As I have said, "proof" will cause division because people as smart or a lot smarter than I am can debate that issue with a fair measure of authority...and their arguments make a lot of sense to the intellect. Faith, the foundation of a belief in God cannot be argued away or debated in my opinion. I don't have to PROVE anything to anyone.

Once again and for the last time...

FAITH is a belief in that which cannot be proven.
Posted By: SoulDragoN Re: This is respectful - I promise - 08/30/08 06:26 PM
***EDIT***
Posted By: cinderella Re: This is respectful - I promise - 09/01/08 06:58 AM
So, Kiwi, are you ok?
© Marriage BuildersĀ® Forums