Does OW/OM fOW/fOM use religion/faith to justify their actions?

[complicatedlife]

A need to justify actions implies feelings of guilt

 

i agree. But many OWs own responsibility in what they do.

[Thaddeus]

Those would be what my faith considers "old laws".

 

Let me know what you think.

So some parts of the bible are relevant, while others aren't. Is that correct?

[complicatedlife]

You didnt list my religion and that is ok. lol. There is lot of common sense and overlap between most religions. Some are more tolerant than the others. But on issues such as infidelity, they all are fairly consistent in their message.

True. Unless one is Muslim or even Mormon and practices polygamy, in which case, no infidelity.

 

I don't know about this. You judge people's actions not people themselves. And if they continue to go down the wrong path consistently then yes I would probably judge them. An action is either Right or Wrong. If you dont judge, how do you expect people to grow ? You judge people only if they break the law ? I don't agree.

I agree on the judging people's actions, though some here judge the PERSON. Okay...right and wrong....a universal concept and for those who don't believe in "right or wrong", they defer to "natural laws". Natural law is about the ACT not the person. I am not sure whether I agree that growth comes in the form of judging.

[complicatedlife]

If this was not the case, what possible relevance would the allegation that in your situation, for example CL, the BW had embezzled, cheated first, or stolen? Clearly , you feel the need to justify your actions, which, I expect , go against what you know to be right.

 

Reggie...I think you are misconstruing things. In no way, shape or form did I ever say that my boyfriend's ex-wife's deceit justified our affair. Nothing justifies it, and I have never tried to justify it because I cannot. I don't have a clue as to why you think I tried to do that. If I brought it up, it was more than likely to show that their was no "betrayed" spouse in MY situation - no one was hurt - SHE WANTED THE MARRIAGE TO BE OVER, TOO. But that doesn't mean that I think what she did, or what my BF and I did was a good thing. In any event, she's moved on to what she wanted and so have we.

 

And for the record, I do plenty that isn't "right" - not just participate in an affair. For example, I blacked on a few people on LS yesterday and was mean. I am not perfect. But I do try to be as good of a person as I possibly can and I try to be good to people.

[complicatedlife]

So some parts of the bible are relevant, while others aren't. Is that correct?

Well..here...no matter what I say about the Bible, you are going to try to find a way to put it down and/or discredit it. So, suffice it to say that people who believe in the Bible understand it's relevance quite differently than you do. And that's ok on both parts.

[complicatedlife]

I think most religions hold the 10 commandments in common whether or not they call it that.

 

But religion is personal. Not everyone will interpret things the same way (look at the differences in teh Muslim world between teh fundamentalists and the moderates).

 

HOlding someone accountable on religious grounds (especially when you dont know them and dont know what their religous beliefs are the same as yours) is NEVER right in my view.

 

Thats why there are laws, because they override religious norms and apply regardless of whether an individual believes its is right or wrong.

 

Damn. Took the words right out of my mouth. SUSTAINED!

[bentnotbroken]

I don't justify my actions. There's nothing to justify it. I can make the argument that I didn't know he was married, but when I found out I didn't leave him.

 

I didn't adjust my moral code, I acted contrary to it. I don't blame anyone else for that, that was my choice.

 

I suppose there are those who would argue that I have no moral code and there are those who would argue that my moral code is that what is done in love is right.

 

I don't believe either of the two arguments. I am a Christian and I know what I did was wrong. But I didn't go to Church during that time and profess I was this great Christian and act like a hypocrite.

 

There is no justification for hurting someone else unless it is in self-defense. That is my moral code.

 

And I didn't follow that. But I take responsibility for that.

 

As for the forgiveness and repentance part, it says to ask for forgiveness and sin no more. That covers all sins, no matter how much we as people think some sins "weigh" more than others.

 

I think we as a people are full of vengeance when we are hurt and we want those that hurt us to suffer. So we pick and choose the Bibble verses that support our view.

 

In short, I don't justify my behavior. I take responsibility for it. I have made my peace with God and myself and extended the olive branch. There is nothing more I can do.

 

GEL

 

 

Any Christian who says they don't live contradictory to their beliefs at different times is a liar. We all do. When we let the flesh take over we act the way we want and do what we believe is in our best interest. NO matter what that circumstance is, the contradictions happen. Excellent post.

[NoIDidn't]

Even in the OW/OM forum, a religious discussion isn't free from those that don't believe coming in and changing the subject.

 

CL, I don't think anyone is on topic with this. You asked if any OW/OM were using their religion to justify their actions in the A. The only person that really posted an answer was GEL. And the way she answered it, leads me to other questions. But I won't go there because it would be seen as an attack when I really just wanna know.

 

To the topic, though. I don't think anyone can use their religion to justify an affair unless they are male and muslim. No offense to the males or muslims. Just the most religions turn a blind eye to male cheating, and some even condone it.

[jj33]

Actually Islam does not condone affairs. It condones multiple marriages.

 

There are some sort of folk beliefs in for example Indonesia where you can go to a religious site and if you go to there and have sex with the same person 7 times your prayer will be answered. But its not officially condoned by the Imams so far as I know. There was a great article in a womans magazine once about how people went there and sometimes couldnt find the same person to have sex with all 7 times so they had to go back (wink wink). But for some people its a way of carrying on an A in a socially acceptable manner.

 

As for the question. You are right NID. I dont see how ANY religion condones an affair. Most religions follow the 10 commandments.

 

But many religious people have affairs and they find themselves with guilt over the conflict with their professed values.

[NoIDidn't]

I should have said male and/OR muslim.

 

Most religions turn a blind eye to men in affairs and condemn the woman (the married woman) for having an affair. Even Islam and Christianity.

 

Its the religious views that turn women into whores and harlots, IMO.

 

I've spoken about my serial cheating dad here many times. He is an ordained minister and deacon. Because of my experiences with religious people in power (some, not all), I don't think mentioning someone is in the ministry carries a bit of weight as to their moral character or center.

 

I can't think of any religion that actually condones causing others hurt. Not even that Millian theory seems to support the idea that hurting someone else for your own personal gain as advantageous.

[jj33]

Excatly NID. Its the old theory of women as temptresses who seduce those poor men who couldnt help themselves. All the woman's fault. Like the sirens in greek mythology. You see alot of that theroy espoused on here too...

[NoIDidn't]

Excatly NID. Its the old theory of women as temptresses who seduce those poor men who couldnt help themselves. All the woman's fault. Like the sirens in greek mythology. You see alot of that theroy espoused on here too...

 

I'm far from sexist, but what we speak about is a system that was set up by men to take away a woman's power.

 

But its such a contradiction to me. How is a woman so powerful as to seduce a man silly, but not powerful enough to be respected in her own right? How can a man who claims to hear from God personally be taken to his knees by a woman unless he WANTS to?

 

Look at Samson and Delilah. Samson wanted her. She didn't seduce him. But many use that story to talk about the ways a woman can seduce a man. And that would be wrong. She was being paid to use his love and trust against him. This wasn't a story about a man that was weak for a woman because she seduced him. Same as David and Bathsheba, and Judah and Tamar. These men saw a woman they wanted and they took what they wanted. No seduction involved.

[Reggie]

Well, I've read a lot of post. But, I've never heard of someone cheating for religous reasons. That's out there.

Perhaps as a pennance, one's confessor could require cheating with , say, Rosie O'Donnel or Mel Gibson.

[Reggie]

Excatly NID. Its the old theory of women as temptresses who seduce those poor men who couldnt help themselves. All the woman's fault. Like the sirens in greek mythology. You see alot of that theroy espoused on here too...

 

I really don't see much of this anywhere. I know there is a perception that male cheaters do not get as much disapproval. But, I just do not see it.

In fact, there seems to be an equally misguided perception that WWs are not as responsible for cheating since their husbands must have been ogres.

[65tr6]

True. Unless one is Muslim or even Mormon and practices polygamy, in which case, no infidelity..

 

I am not a muslim or a mormon either ! But now that you mention the religion of muslim....I believe adultery is a punishable crime (stoned to death ?). I dont know if it applies to both man and the woman. I thought it did just for the woman but I am no expert.

 

I agree on the judging people's actions, though some here judge the PERSON. Okay...right and wrong....a universal concept and for those who don't believe in "right or wrong", they defer to "natural laws". Natural law is about the ACT not the person. I am not sure whether I agree that growth comes in the form of judging.

 

I judged my wife. I called her stupid. Did i mean that ? No way. It does not matter. How she perceived it was important not what I meant. Yes i did the wrong thing and I wish my action was judged as immature. I learnt the hardway. Call it a wake up call. I would think that is growth.

 

I have seen people post here that comes across as judging others. They are probably judging their actions. If I have 99 folks telling me what I did was wrong and 1 person saying I was right, the odds are pretty good that I went down the wrong path.

[whichwayisup]

I believe adultery is a punishable crime (stoned to death ?). I dont know if it applies to both man and the woman.

 

Only women. Men can cheat and have many wives.

[Reggie]

Only women. Men can cheat and have many wives.

 

Well, that certainly seems like a bit of a double standard. WTF are these whacky folks thinking? Oh, those wild and crazy Taliban guys.

 

I better watch it. Salman Rushdi, can you assist?

[NoIDidn't]

Well, that certainly seems like a bit of a double standard. WTF are these whacky folks thinking? Oh, those wild and crazy Taliban guys.

 

I better watch it. Salman Rushdi, can you assist?

 

Reggie, you silly goose!

 

It IS a double standard. Most Bible scholars, and just religion experts will tell you that men weren't to be stoned for adultery. Only married women. Even single women didn't get stoned for being with married men.

 

According to the Old Testament Law, the woman was to be stoned for having an affair, or even forced to have an abortion if her H suspected that the child she was carrying was not his (the bitter water test, if it was his, she supposedly stayed pregnant, but if it wasn't she miscarried because of the chemicals).

[Reggie]

Reggie, you silly goose!

 

It IS a double standard. Most Bible scholars, and just religion experts will tell you that men weren't to be stoned for adultery. Only married women. Even single women didn't get stoned for being with married men.

 

According to the Old Testament Law, the woman was to be stoned for having an affair, or even forced to have an abortion if her H suspected that the child she was carrying was not his (the bitter water test, if it was his, she supposedly stayed pregnant, but if it wasn't she miscarried because of the chemicals).

 

Wow, people are crazy. Don't you ever wonder what types of weird stuff we are doing that later genrations will look back on with disbelief?

I think about this, a lot. What do I do, that I accept as okay, that is really F'd up, big time.

I have some ideas. If this planet survives, WTF are future generations going to think about what has been done to the environment? We act as if there is an infinite supply of fossil fuel and that the byproducts do nothing to the atmosphere.

Who can explain why one intoxicant is advertised during football games, an intoxicant that leads to violence and death and the destruction of families, while another one, that can help with cancer pain and treat glaucoma, is reviled and labeld a gateway drug(we smoked a fair amount as kids and, before that were stealing booze to get hammered. So, isn't booze a gateway drug?)

Or, abortion(touchy subject, I know). Will it be viewed in horror or will the delay in allowing it be viewed as nuts? Same with stem cells research.

Try explaining why beliefs like getting 17 virgins for killing Christians is viewed as nuts, but believing bread and water are converted to Christ's flesh and blood via incantations is not.

You can go on and on with this stuff. It just seems we are so limited and incapable of figuring stuff out.

Who knows how infidelity will be viewed?

In my lifetime all types of things have changed. Many of the beliefs I once had are completely different. What a strange little trip this life is.

I hope I am reincarnated as a bath towel for , say. Selma Hayek.

[Reggie]

I'm far from sexist, but what we speak about is a system that was set up by men to take away a woman's power.

 

But its such a contradiction to me. How is a woman so powerful as to seduce a man silly, but not powerful enough to be respected in her own right? How can a man who claims to hear from God personally be taken to his knees by a woman unless he WANTS to?

 

Look at Samson and Delilah. Samson wanted her. She didn't seduce him. But many use that story to talk about the ways a woman can seduce a man. And that would be wrong. She was being paid to use his love and trust against him. This wasn't a story about a man that was weak for a woman because she seduced him. Same as David and Bathsheba, and Judah and Tamar. These men saw a woman they wanted and they took what they wanted. No seduction involved.

 

Yeah, and what doorknob came up with the idea that women and children should get the seats in lifeboats?

Who the heck had John the Baptist's head cutoff?

[Thornton]

If you tell me you believe 2+2=5 because you have faith, I'm not going to argue with you. You're not arguing facts, you're arguing feelings. How can I tell you your feelings are incorrect? At the same time, you're not going to be able to convince anyone else that 2+2=5 except those people who already have the same "faith" as you do.

 

2 plus 2 does equal 5... for sufficiently large values of 2

[NoIDidn't]

Why do non-believers who worship at the altar of "facts" think they know everything?

 

Feelings vs. Facts. Take a blood pressure reading when you are angry and tell me the facts on that. Okay?

[Teslacoil]

2 plus 2 does equal 5... for sufficiently large values of 2

 

Yes, yes I know.

 

Anytime I make any kind of 1+1 joke or comment, I'll always have one or two science friends around who say that.

 

Some of them have scientific formula tattoos.

[Thaddeus]

Why do non-believers who worship at the altar of "facts" think they know everything?

On the contrary, those who prefer facts over feelings should be able to recognize when new data negates the old data. Nobody knows everything (well, except my mother... just ask her!), and that includes people who worship at the altar of feelings.

[Reggie]

On the contrary, those who prefer facts over feelings should be able to recognize when new data negates the old data. Nobody knows everything (well, except my mother... just ask her!), and that includes people who worship at the altar of feelings.

 

Both approaches have their drawbacks and advantages. No "shoulds". IMO.