Marriage Builders
Ok .. I hope that I am allowed to share the articles in this manner. My wife and I read them and they really hit home. The husbands duty made both my wife and I cry when we read it as I reflected on my failings as a christian husband.

The Husbands Duty
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/husband.html

The Wifes duty
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/wife.html

What really stood out for me was just how much responsibility the bible puts on the husband for the household and his responsibility to his wife. No wonder Dr.Harley advocates such a longer term plan A. We as husbands should be always in plan A.

MNG

I hope I presented the articles properly so everyone who might be interested in biblical roles of husband and wife could get a chance to read them.
In many ways, I believe that if one looks at this idea of roles and think about each spouse having specific needs, it goes along so well with MB.

I also like what he says when he says not to ask "will this marriage work" but to ask yourself "will you work"?

MB is work but it is work that works and there is nothing more rewarding than a marriage that works because we do the work.

I am afraid I just made that confusing but maybe it makes sense.
I am glad you see it! I feel the same way. I had to share these articles. Just to mention ... Do not link this thread to other forum sections. Keep it here. Thanks

MNG

Edit to add: I also feel these articles are biblical versions of Dr.Harleys plan A for both spouses.
If you think about the needs that men typically have - admiration, SF, DS etc. they are in some very basic ways tied to leadership, respect and such.

Women tend to need the "softer?" needs? Affection, family commitment, and then also there is FS. They tend to revolve around helping, nuturing, being led/protected.

I might be reaching but that is how it seems to me. But then H and I are very much in favor of the "Ephesians 5 model."
I see several problems with the article addressed to men. These things do not line up with what Dr. Harley says, and several of them would be disrespectful judgements:

Love = sacrifice. "You can only measure your love by your sacrifice, not your enjoyment." If there is no sacrifice, there is no love.

Husbands are the "Saviour" and "deliverer" of their wives.

A wife's love is in response to her husband's "salvation."

It encourages the husband to see the wife as a sinner that needs to be saved by the husband.

The husband santifies his wife. "That is, to place this woman in a unique category and take her from where she is to where she needs to go ... So that if she's messed up, your job is to fix it up"
"To submit to your husband does not mean you agree with him on everything, it means you recognize his position as head of the household to accomplish God's purposes as it relates to the family ... The job of the head is to give direction to the body. The duty of the wife is to willingly place all of her strengths under the authority of the husband to follow him as he follows Christ."

This goes against POJA.

And this is NOT Biblical submission. Biblical submission lines up with POJA quite well. A wife is to submit to her husband, meaning she does not do anything that he is not enthusiastic about. Likewise, a husband loves his wife as he loves himself, and will not do anything that she is not enthusiastic about.

There is no "guidance" and "direction" by the husband, nor does the wife willingly place herself under the husband's authority.
I agree Prisca. Those parts were not appealing to me either. And the scriptures he uses to describe those particular points are open to interpretation. However that being said, the articles still hold valid points if you are in a christian marriage.

In my case my wife feels I am her "fixer". She has expressed to me on numerous occasions that her sanity is pretty much dependant on my emotional state due to her upbringing somehow (currently seeing a psycologist and my wife has also expressed this to him also).
"Honoring doesn't mean that you agree with her, it doesn't mean that your decision is going to be the decision she wants you to have, We're not talking about control. But to honor her means, �Honey, I gotta make the decision, and I appreciate your feedback. You've given me your thoughts, your ideas, because you're a partner in this relationship and I need to know how you feel about it. And before I make this decision, you give me your feedback because God may be giving you some things that I need to hear. But having heard what you said, I think I gotta go another way. But I want to let you know that even though I'm going a way different than how you would have me go, I'm going to be thinking about you all the way. And if I see down the line that this is not going to be in your best interest, I'm going to reverse back. Because I don't want to do anything in my decision that's going to harm you. So even though I disagree with you, I'll honour you, because you're going to be on my mind all the way.�

This also is not MB.

I am not sure how you think this lines up with MB if there are parts that conflict with POJA and basically encourage IB for the H?
Originally Posted by SusieQ
"Honoring doesn't mean that you agree with her, it doesn't mean that your decision is going to be the decision she wants you to have, We're not talking about control. But to honor her means, �Honey, I gotta make the decision, and I appreciate your feedback. You've given me your thoughts, your ideas, because you're a partner in this relationship and I need to know how you feel about it. And before I make this decision, you give me your feedback because God may be giving you some things that I need to hear. But having heard what you said, I think I gotta go another way. But I want to let you know that even though I'm going a way different than how you would have me go, I'm going to be thinking about you all the way. And if I see down the line that this is not going to be in your best interest, I'm going to reverse back. Because I don't want to do anything in my decision that's going to harm you. So even though I disagree with you, I'll honour you, because you're going to be on my mind all the way.�

This also is not MB.

I am not sure how you think this lines up with MB if there are parts that conflict with POJA and basically encourage IB for the H?

That paragraph mentions a husband wanting to make sure his decision doesn't harm his wife - but then going ahead and doing what he wants anyway. It completely misses that if your wife isn't enthusiastic about something you want to do, doing it will be a harm to her.

It'll hurt your wife to do something she's not enthusiastic about. It'll hurt even worse if you ask first, find out how she feels, and do it anyway. That is basically the definition of thoughtless behavior. I find it to be the opposite of loving your wife.
Regarding sacrifice, Dr. Harley has said the following:

Originally Posted by Dr Bill Harley to a pastor
Uh, where do I begin. I can't tell you how many couples I've counseled where one spouse did just what you suggested -- sacrifice their own enjoyment for the pleasure of their spouse. The reason I'm counseling them, of course, is that the one doing the sacrificing eventually can't take giving without receiving anymore, and wants a divorce. One recent cases that comes to mind is a pastor's wife. He gave your message to his wife throughout their marriage. They have reconciled, but only because he finally understands the concept of mutual care. Unless both he and his wife enjoy their ... experience, she comes to hate it. ...

It's dangerous stuff you're recommending. It ruins marriages.

I would point out the following from the Bible:

Originally Posted by Luke 14
12 Then He also said to him who invited Him, "When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. 13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. 14 And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just."

God does not envision Christians sacrificing to those who can repay them. In a marriage, we are able to repay each other. That is what marriage is all about: husband and wife providing mutual care for each other, pleasing each other (1 Corinthians 7 talks about this). If you want to offer a sacrifice to God, provide a work of benevolence to someone who cannot repay.
Quote
It has nothing to do with what she's doing to you in return, because we're talking about scriptural love. �And if you hate me, I'm going to love you. And if you reject me , I'm still going to try to please you. Because I am here to feed and nourish you. Because I am your satisfier!"

Interesting thought, but even God eventually goes to Plan B!
Quote
In my case my wife feels I am her "fixer". She has expressed to me on numerous occasions that her sanity is pretty much dependant on my emotional state due to her upbringing somehow (currently seeing a psycologist and my wife has also expressed this to him also).
Does she really mean this? This concerns me. Her sanity is dependent upon YOUR emotional state??
Originally Posted by maritalbliss
Quote
In my case my wife feels I am her "fixer". She has expressed to me on numerous occasions that her sanity is pretty much dependant on my emotional state due to her upbringing somehow (currently seeing a psycologist and my wife has also expressed this to him also).
Does she really mean this? This concerns me. Her sanity is dependent upon YOUR emotional state??

Yes actually. Lately she's been pretty fragile. She's been through a lot of emotional trauma in her life that I don't know where to begin so I won't bother. She expressed that if I am not being the "rock" of the relationship she feels lost. Her anxiety has been pretty bad this year... As my own also. I'm not saying 100% of the time though but she has expressed it during emotional times of unstability as well as to our psycologist.
Originally Posted by markos
Regarding sacrifice, Dr. Harley has said the following:

Originally Posted by Dr Bill Harley to a pastor
Uh, where do I begin. I can't tell you how many couples I've counseled where one spouse did just what you suggested -- sacrifice their own enjoyment for the pleasure of their spouse. The reason I'm counseling them, of course, is that the one doing the sacrificing eventually can't take giving without receiving anymore, and wants a divorce. One recent cases that comes to mind is a pastor's wife. He gave your message to his wife throughout their marriage. They have reconciled, but only because he finally understands the concept of mutual care. Unless both he and his wife enjoy their ... experience, she comes to hate it. ...

It's dangerous stuff you're recommending. It ruins marriages.

I would point out the following from the Bible:

Originally Posted by Luke 14
12 Then He also said to him who invited Him, "When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. 13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. 14 And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just."

God does not envision Christians sacrificing to those who can repay them. In a marriage, we are able to repay each other. That is what marriage is all about: husband and wife providing mutual care for each other, pleasing each other (1 Corinthians 7 talks about this). If you want to offer a sacrifice to God, provide a work of benevolence to someone who cannot repay.


I was reading about some of John Gottman's research, and one topic that was studied would be very much like the idea of POJA - there were three categories; negative sum, neutral sum, positive sum. The study ran for 20 years, and at the end of the 20, those who had a habit of negative-sum decision making (MB translation; one spouse sacrificing for the happiness of the other) did not return. In fact, many had died.

These acts of sacrifice are not just bad for a marriage, they are bad for your health!
The man who wrote the articles is a man. I do not agree with several segments of what he wrote. For instance, the bits about sacrifice and sanctification and such.

I do agree with what God wrote. And I believe that MB lines up very well with what God wrote.

If it did not line up with what God wrote, then I would not be a proponent of MB.

"Your Word is settled forever in heaven." Ps. 119:89

"ALL Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for instruction, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." II Tim. 3:16

It is evident from Dr. Harley's writings that God's infallible Word is a part of his approach. I like that.
Quote
If it did not line up with what God wrote, then I would not be a proponent of MB.
Ditto. smile
Originally Posted by MrNiceGuy
Originally Posted by maritalbliss
Quote
In my case my wife feels I am her "fixer". She has expressed to me on numerous occasions that her sanity is pretty much dependant on my emotional state due to her upbringing somehow (currently seeing a psycologist and my wife has also expressed this to him also).
Does she really mean this? This concerns me. Her sanity is dependent upon YOUR emotional state??

Yes actually. Lately she's been pretty fragile. She's been through a lot of emotional trauma in her life that I don't know where to begin so I won't bother. She expressed that if I am not being the "rock" of the relationship she feels lost. Her anxiety has been pretty bad this year... As my own also. I'm not saying 100% of the time though but she has expressed it during emotional times of unstability as well as to our psycologist.

I've heard Dr. Harley say that if a wife is very emotional and anxious, a husband usually tends to be able to deal with that, while if a husband is very emotional and anxious, it usually drives a wife nuts. As an example, Dr. Harley referred to Monk the detective on the USA TV series - he mentioned that men who are like that in real life tend to drive any woman in their lives nuts.

I think Prisca can testify that that is true, as she is married to a man very much like Monk. I have to make sure I use the POJA to prevent me from imposing the burden of my anxieties on Prisca. For example, if I want all my handkerchiefs folded a certain way, I don't demand that she do it - I do it myself or put up with how she does it if she does it for me. (I actually figured this one out on my own before marriage builders, but there were a thousand other anxieties I was all too willing to impose on her in the past.)
I feel the same markos. Seems now that I got my anxiety under control, she has an easier time maintaining hers.

When my emotional state was very anxious and unstable (prior to going to the psycologist with her, which we do together) my wifes was also. She likely fed off my emotional state (she admits to this) and in direct proportion to her fear it drove her to want to be very controlling of every aspect of our lives (admittied to this also in a session with our psycologist). She's beginning to let go and be quicker to forgive instead of holding grudges against me for the longest time over seemingly the smallest of things. I basicly had to give up all my needs and do plan A while we were going to the psycolohist 4x a month. Its now only 1x a month as we work through our struggles, fears, insecurities and issues. MB is still our primary tool we just have other inner issues to take care of.

When I get a chance I will snip the parts I liked from the articles. I agree some of what's said contradicts mb in the terms it was written. It is just a mans interpretation of the duties described in the bible. But the message is still clear.

"LOVE my wife until she's the person I need her to be".

I didn't marry her, I married her entire history. Some of which is just coming to light now as we build a safety net around us.

So that means I go first, always with love, since I should be the most stable emotionaly in the home (for the longest time I was not).. God commands it.

MNG
Well, for 2000 years the Church has always taught that the husband was to be the head of the house, just as Christ is head of the Church.
The marriage is somewhat of a picture of Gods relationship with the Church.
The issue is that Dr. Harley is not the Pope. Hes only been alive for maybe 70 years and the Church has existed for 2000 years.

In centuries past, the Church interpretation was working and there was little divorce (with exceptions such as King Henry who wanted to divorce his wife; the Pope wouldn't let him so he banned the Church).
People could not divorce because it (1) would not be granted in most cases and (2) there were no women rights.

Today women have rights and they dont want to be controlled by their husband. Harley has commented on this as well on the Radio Show.
In our modern age, some parts of the Biblical rules and Church traditions on marriage are not followed
Originally Posted by Jedi_Knight
Well, for 2000 years the Church has always taught that the husband was to be the head of the house, just as Christ is head of the Church.
The marriage is somewhat of a picture of Gods relationship with the Church.
The issue is that Dr. Harley is not the Pope. Hes only been alive for maybe 70 years and the Church has existed for 2000 years.

In centuries past, the Church interpretation was working and there was little divorce (with exceptions such as King Henry who wanted to divorce his wife; the Pope wouldn't let him so he banned the Church).
People could not divorce because it (1) would not be granted in most cases and (2) there were no women rights.

Today women have rights and they dont want to be controlled by their husband. Harley has commented on this as well on the Radio Show.
In our modern age, some parts of the Biblical rules and Church traditions on marriage are not followed

Well put Jedi_knight.

Wasn't there a thread a long time ago that touched on this stuff by another board member? His name I think started with an "M". I want to say Maroon but that's not it. If someone remembers what it is plz link to it in here.

Thanks
MNG
Originally Posted by Jedi_Knight
Well, for 2000 years the Church has always taught that the husband was to be the head of the house, just as Christ is head of the Church.
The marriage is somewhat of a picture of Gods relationship with the Church.
The issue is that Dr. Harley is not the Pope. Hes only been alive for maybe 70 years and the Church has existed for 2000 years.

In centuries past, the Church interpretation was working and there was little divorce (with exceptions such as King Henry who wanted to divorce his wife; the Pope wouldn't let him so he banned the Church).
People could not divorce because it (1) would not be granted in most cases and (2) there were no women rights.

Today women have rights and they dont want to be controlled by their husband. Harley has commented on this as well on the Radio Show.
In our modern age, some parts of the Biblical rules and Church traditions on marriage are not followed

Many disagree with the idea of there even being a Pope. At least one large church has disagreed with that for 1000 years.
Well I disagree with denominations and also disagree with any one person repesenting as some head figure as if he is any better than the rest of us.

With that said I did a bunch of searches and finally figured out the guys name and his thread.

Mortarman's thread "Husband and wifes roles"
http://forum.marriagebuilders.com/u...in=119011&Number=1379231#Post1379231

Has a lot of similarily related dialog as the articles. I will look it over more thoroughly later.

MNG
I would like to testify that my wife came into our marriage with an idea of "headship" and "submission" that nearly ruined our marriage. There is a post she has made somewhere on the board called "How my GIVER nearly ruined our marriage."

She was so oriented toward "submitting" to me that she very quickly killed the love she had for me and went into depression. The only solution for that depression was the restoration of our relationship.

I am not convinced that a reading of the Bible that has the wife "submitting" in the way most religious people mean is what God meant when He wrote those words. Many people are setting up a relationship where the wife obeys a husband like a child obeying a parent. I just don't see that ever expressed as a Biblical model for leadership of any sort. Even the apostles were restrained in what they could instruct church members to do (witness in Acts where Peter indicated that giving had to be voluntary and until given to the church, property and money belonged to its owner who could decide whatever they wanted to do with it, give it or not). Even elders are instructed not to "lord it over" God's heritage.

An understanding of the Bible that allows for a husband to "lord it over" his wife, issue instructions to his wife, set direction for his wife is a MISunderstanding if you ask me. Demands are utterly destructive to a marriage and I don't think a single part of God's word is being correctly read if it is used to justify them.

Regardless of what those passages are expressing about marriage, they do not claim to be the solution to all marital problems. In most cases I know where these passages are brought up in contexts like this board, where people come for marital help, the result is that the wife is told to put up with the problem and not complain, that this is the definition of submitting and following her husband's leadership.

Horsehockey. smile And you can tell your church's leaders I said so. The Bible was not written to describe a marriage where the husband makes demands of his wife. The very first step in following the Bible, in loving your wife, is to eliminate abuse and control from your marriage: demands, disrespect, and anger.
Originally Posted by Jedi_Knight
Well, for 2000 years the Church has always taught that the husband was to be the head of the house, just as Christ is head of the Church.

Mmmm not quite. Marriage is a very modern concept and until recently only existed in the west for for those with assets to protect the blood line.

Originally Posted by Jedi_Knight
The marriage is somewhat of a picture of Gods relationship with the Church.

Other way around, we have created a picture of God's relationship with the Church to reflect a simplistic version of the deity.

Originally Posted by Jedi_Knight
The issue is that Dr. Harley is not the Pope. Hes only been alive for maybe 70 years and the Church has existed for 2000 years.

In centuries past, the Church interpretation was working and there was little divorce (with exceptions such as King Henry who wanted to divorce his wife; the Pope wouldn't let him so he banned the Church).

500 years ago marriages lasted an average 7 years which is the same as today. The difference was that people died. Difficult husbands were quietly poisoned and wives often died in childbirth.

Originally Posted by Jedi_Knight
People could not divorce because it (1) would not be granted in most cases and (2) there were no women rights.

There were no rights, nobody had rights of any kind. Through most of human history life was about surviving.

Originally Posted by Jedi_Knight
Today women have rights and they dont want to be controlled by their husband. Harley has commented on this as well on the Radio Show.
In our modern age, some parts of the Biblical rules and Church traditions on marriage are not followed


Actually until very recently responsibilities were segregated. The woman's domain was the house and children and her word was law, the man's domain was to the outside world. This is still the pattern in most of the world and, when it works it works well.

What has changed, is that these roles have become blurred creating the need for the MB guidance of Dr Harley. There has been a paradigm shift.
Originally Posted by living_well
Originally Posted by Jedi_Knight
Well, for 2000 years the Church has always taught that the husband was to be the head of the house, just as Christ is head of the Church.

Mmmm not quite. Marriage is a very modern concept and until recently only existed in the west for for those with assets to protect the blood line.

???

This is very quickly becoming a free for all for everybody's personal opinions and all kinds of unsubstantiated historical claims.
At least its interesting conversation going on here. smile
Please be sure to stick to the original purpose of this thread: compare the linked material to Marriage Builders. Do not veer off into religious debates.
Thank you Mizar.
Quote
I am not convinced that a reading of the Bible that has the wife "submitting" in the way most religious people mean is what God meant when He wrote those words. Many people are setting up a relationship where the wife obeys a husband like a child obeying a parent. I just don't see that ever expressed as a Biblical model for leadership of any sort. Even the apostles were restrained in what they could instruct church members to do (witness in Acts where Peter indicated that giving had to be voluntary and until given to the church, property and money belonged to its owner who could decide whatever they wanted to do with it, give it or not). Even elders are instructed not to "lord it over" God's heritage.

If pasting this is in violation of not veering off then it can be removed, but it was really good and I thought reflects the balance of MB well. No one is a doormet or giver to the point of harm.
Originally Posted by Dr Bill Harley to a pastor
Uh, where do I begin. I can't tell you how many couples I've counseled where one spouse did just what you suggested -- sacrifice their own enjoyment for the pleasure of their spouse. The reason I'm counseling them, of course, is that the one doing the sacrificing eventually can't take giving without receiving anymore, and wants a divorce. One recent cases that comes to mind is a pastor's wife. He gave your message to his wife throughout their marriage. They have reconciled, but only because he finally understands the concept of mutual care. Unless both he and his wife enjoy their ... experience, she comes to hate it. ...

It's dangerous stuff you're recommending. It ruins marriages.

I know this is an older thread but it's just one of many where the above quote is used and I can't find it any where searching around. I was wondering about the context. Did it get lost in the infamous server crash I've heard mentioned?
That thread was indeed lost in the crash of October 2009. <?> The thread was started by a woman who had a sexual aversion. A pastor posted to her that she should "submit" to her husband and just have sex with him. Dr. Harley had been posting to the thread starter and responded to the pastor.
Originally Posted by Prisca
"To submit to your husband does not mean you agree with him on everything, it means you recognize his position as head of the household to accomplish God's purposes as it relates to the family ... The job of the head is to give direction to the body. The duty of the wife is to willingly place all of her strengths under the authority of the husband to follow him as he follows Christ."

This goes against POJA.

And this is NOT Biblical submission. Biblical submission lines up with POJA quite well. A wife is to submit to her husband, meaning she does not do anything that he is not enthusiastic about. Likewise, a husband loves his wife as he loves himself, and will not do anything that she is not enthusiastic about.

There is no "guidance" and "direction" by the husband, nor does the wife willingly place herself under the husband's authority.


I find the articles to be riddled with errors and quite anti MB, but not the biblical references themselves.

As a non religious person I began my marriage with an idea of equality, quite unlike yours Prisca, which meant I shouldered too much of the marriage.

I'm fascinated by this word 'agape' - demonstrative love? Presumably when the man doesn't always feel like it? We see that so much with Plan A husbands I'm intrigued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

A primer on agape and other Greek concepts of love.



My $.02 on this topic:

My marriage counselor had me read "Every Man's Marriage" by Steve Arterburn and Fred Stoeker when my WW and I started counseling. It had the same general approach as this article and most Evangelical commentary I see on marriage relations, except perhaps it was harsher on the husband. I was pretty desperate to save my marriage and I read the whole thing cover to cover in few short days.

It was a great crash course on helping a man identify what we would call "Love Busters" in the Marriage Builders framework and helped me a lot that way, but like most church commentary I see on the actual processes of married life, I thought it was not terribly practical for someone in the trenches. It had nothing to offer me on how to negotiate conflict, how to deal with sexual aversion or identifying/meeting other emotional needs, etc. It was basically a lot of examples of men behaving badly and how this ruined their marriages in some way. You get a lot of ideals thrown at you without a lot of specifics (or terribly misguided specifics). Really great ideas, but not a lot of actual processes for negotiating solutions with your wife.

I'm not saying the ideals are bad, or that the commentary like this doesn't have value, but what stands MB head and shoulders above stuff like this is that it has practical specifics which (from everything I've seen) are soundly compatible or even rooted in Scriptural principles if you care about that sort of thing.

I frankly feel sorry for a lot of the Evangelical newlyweds I see around me that are thrown into the fray with little more than "love your wife as Christ loved the church" and "as long as you're both focused on serving God, you will be fine". These statements do have very complex scriptural and philosophical underpinnings that would infer the types of processes MB describes if they were closely examined, but more often than not they are not closely examined.

My experience was that once I got disappointed in my marriage, it became easier for me to twist these ideals in my mind to fit my current behavior, and in doing so, to slowly slide into love busting habits because I could always look at what was "worse" in my mind and say "at least I'm not doing that! See, I'm a good husband!"

The specificity of MB does not allow for that. I consider MB almost like a necessary extrapolation of these ideas that is much less flexible for creative reinterpretation.
This was a question I sent to the radio show. Dr Harley discusses religious advice vs Christian advice.

I did write to them incorrectly that this advice was offered by a counselor. It was, in fact offered by a friend, and then later the idea was brought to the counselor who suggested that the person being counseled could start by not calling the OW names if that was what they wanted to do.

In any event, the discussion was interesting and I think on point with this thread:

*rises from the grave*

Whoah.. My phone has been dinging for last couple days.. Guess I had this thread on watch.

*waves*
Originally Posted by FightTheFight
This was a question I sent to the radio show. Dr Harley discusses religious advice vs Christian advice.

I did write to them incorrectly that this advice was offered by a counselor. It was, in fact offered by a friend, and then later the idea was brought to the counselor who suggested that the person being counseled could start by not calling the OW names if that was what they wanted to do.

In any event, the discussion was interesting and I think on point with this thread:


These were REALLY good and I think this practically needs to be stickied somewhere for all betrayed spouses to see.

Nearly ALL of the pushback I got on snooping and exposure (and I got a lot of it from some people in the family) was offered on religious grounds, like I was being "unGodly" to snoop or expose WW or OM.

I think this happens a lot from what I read other people saying!
I know of a recent case in which the wife caught her husband in bed with his step daughter. This woman is convinced that if she does not forgive him and return home that she will go to hell. So she has returned to the home with no real plan other than a supposed biblical obligation to forgive. It's kinda sad but there is no convincing someone who believes this way.
Originally Posted by FightTheFight
I know of a recent case in which the wife caught her husband in bed with his step daughter. This woman is convinced that if she does not forgive him and return home that she will go to hell. So she has returned to the home with no real plan other than a supposed biblical obligation to forgive. It's kinda sad but there is no convincing someone who believes this way.

This is a tragedy. shocked

Think of all of the false guilt that is being imposed on this woman out of misguided religious teaching.

If they want to talk about "Biblical obligation" I could show them a few passages in Leviticus about having sex with your relatives that would clear up their misunderstanding in a hurry. wink
I personally believe it is a form of opinion shopping. If you look around on the net long enough you will eventually find something that supports what you wanted to do in the first place.
Originally Posted by FightTheFight
I know of a recent case in which the wife caught her husband in bed with his step daughter. This woman is convinced that if she does not forgive him and return home that she will go to hell. So she has returned to the home with no real plan other than a supposed biblical obligation to forgive. It's kinda sad but there is no convincing someone who believes this way.


How very, very awful. I don't for one minute think anyone can be that mistaken as to where their duty lies.

She's just letting herself off the hook.

© Marriage Builders® Forums