Man Saw Fellow Fan’s Pregnant Wife Texting Another Man, Does Something About It
- Thread starter The Berean
- Start date
Depends, did you see what you know was cheating? Unless i knew for a fact that was what was going on, and i didn't know the people, i would keep my mouth shut.
Do we even know for sure this whole thing is legit, lots of troublemakers out there also who lie for their 15 minutes of fame.
Daniel1611
New member
The dude definitely did the right thing.
I do very much sympathise with you and appreciate the desire to follow the teachings of our master.
However, I think they don't apply here. Because in the church we automatically have responsibility for each other. This is accepted by all those in the faith. We belong to each other and to Christ. And we are told to judge one another and discern. But I can't just go up to some stranger and say 'Hey you're sinning, sort it!' What I can do is be non-judgemental and impartial and merely offer to help. But if my help is refused, which is very likely - after all I am sure the woman would just tell me to mind my own business - then I have only made the situation worse: the woman will be warned and then carry on her deceit with greater circumspection. And if I have only just seen her texting her lover at a football match, I am not about to exactly find out her address and follow up on the matter. I have no right to follow up on it because I don't have a relationship with the couple that allows me to be reponsible for them.
So my only option to do something about it is to tell the husband (or wife in the converse case) because that will resolve the situation for sure one way or another.
The man needs to know the truth to protect his family from the pig.
For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. Mt 10:26
"God will move heaven and earth to show you his will." ~ Charles Stanley
"2 Ti 4:18 will deliver me from every evil work. On the basis of the Lord’s present work—strengthening Paul and standing with him (v. 17)—Paul had hope for the Lord’s future work. He knew God would deliver him from all temptations and plots against him (2 Cor. 1:8–10)." MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 1882). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.
Last edited:
Love :idunno: lust (Heb 13:4).
Lust is self gratification at the expense of another (Ex 20:17). Love is self donation for the good of another (1 Co 13:1-8).
Loving your neighbor is helping to protect him. He doesn't want the whore's pagan venereal diseases. :granite: He's only as clean as her dirtiest whoremonger.
Last edited:
I don't think it is really worth responding to this kind of stuff. But just this once to let you understand that the very scripture you cite is against you. It says that God will judge them. Not you. Trying to do God's work for him because it makes you feel somehow important is not a solution to anything. Get yourself a better self-image and then you wouldn't need to revert to cheap tricks to elevate yourself to the title of righteous man of the moment.
:dizzy: Committing adultery is a cheap trick on another (Ex 20:14, Lev. 20:10–12).
"Love
"Heb 13:4. is, &c.—Translate, “Let marriage be treated as honorable”: as Heb 13:5 also is an exhortation.
in all—“in the case of all men”: “among all.” “To avoid fornication let EVERY MAN have his own wife” (1 Co 7:2). Judaism and Gnosticism combined were soon about to throw discredit on marriage. The venerable Paphnutius, in the Council of Nice, quoted this verse for the justification of the married state. If one does not himself marry, he should not prevent others from doing so. Others, especially Romanists, translate, “in all things,” as in Heb 13:18. But the warning being against lasciviousness, the contrast to “whoremongers and adulterers” in the parallel clause, requires the “in all” in this clause to refer to persons.
the bed undefiled—Translate, as Greek requires “undefiled” to be a predicate, not an epithet, “And let the bed be undefiled.”
God will judge—Most whoremongers escape the notice of human tribunals; but God takes particular cognizance of those whom man does not punish. Gay immoralities will then be regarded in a very different light from what they are now.
5. conversation—“manner of life.” The love of filthy lust and the love of filthy lucre follow one another as closely akin, both alienating the heart from the Creator to the creature." Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 2, pp. 479–480). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge [Heb. 13:4].
"“Marriage is honourable in all.” The writer is condeming asceticism here. Young man, if you find a Christian girl who will have you, get married. Young lady, if you find a Christian fellow who will have you, get married. I believe that God will lead you to the right one, if you are willing to be led in that way.
Marriage is honorable in all, and sex is to be exercised within the framework of marriage. God gave marriage to mankind for the welfare of mankind. I know I sound like a square, because this idea of living together without being married has become very commonplace, but I must tell you, young person, that you will surely pay for it if you attempt to live together outside the bonds of marriage. The home is the very center of the whole social structure, and it is the very center of the church.
“And the bed undefiled.” There is nothing wrong with sex—except that it is being taught too much in our schools today. When I was in London sometime ago, I learned that they were going to cut down on teaching sex. They found that it led to more rapes in the schools than ever before, and they felt it to be responsible for an epidemic of venereal disease.
“But whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). This is very severe, but after years in the ministry, I have watched many Christians who have tried to get by with sexual sins, and I do not know of any who have been able to do it. Maybe they have not been detected, but they have not gotten by with it; God has judged them." McGee, J. V. (1991). Thru the Bible commentary: The Epistles (Hebrews 8-13) (electronic ed., Vol. 52, pp. 139–140). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
"Heb 13:4 honorable. God highly honors marriage, which He instituted at creation (Gen. 2:24); but some people in the early church considered celibacy to be holier than marriage, an idea Paul strongly denounces in 1 Tim. 4:3 (see notes on 1 Cor. 7). Sexual activity in a marriage is pure, but any sexual activity outside marriage brings one under divine judgment. God will judge. God prescribes serious consequences for sexual immorality (see notes on Eph. 5:3–6)." MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 1921). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.
See:
Should Christians Judge? By Bob Enyart
Last edited:
To expound on my statement, married men in America often have girlfriends on the side because adultery is not illegal. It is just a woman's natural worries about many men.
Your basic instruction comes from the risen Lord Jesus Christ, not his earthly ministry to Israel. That isn't to say what he taught them might not apply, but you go with what he told Paul after the fact.
1 Timothy 5
20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.
Humiliation and the stripping of pride goes a long way. There is a reason certain DoD branches do it to recruits. And it isn't to be mean.
As for Matthew 18, keep reading.
17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
Thunder's Muse
Well-known member
If I saw your spouse texting the type of messages (this woman did) to another woman, would you want me to tell you, or just keep it secret?
I would want to be told.
And I could take it from there to confront him and determine what is going on between he & she.
Nazaroo
New member
A good teacher, instructor, apostle, elder,
will not leave their people, or their neighbors, in confusion.
Yet there is a lot of confusion in this thread.
I tremble to appoint myself a teacher,
but I am compelled like Job's fourth young friend,
to speak a word on behalf of God's own word.
Let me first prove there is plenty of confusion:
Whats wrong here?
(1) the assumption of guilt.
(2) the admission it makes no difference - liars are exposed.
(3) yet there's apparently nothing wrong with exposing them, even prior to establishment of wrongdoing.
(4) in another post, same poster recommends disregarding consequences of actions:
"Do the right thing." But if anything is the right thing, what is 'the right thing'?
The plain suggestion here is that it makes no difference what the observer does.
Whatever he does is a-okay. He can do no wrong.
Is that really true according to the word of God?
No fault situation?
(1) Apparently again, whatever he does, its "the right thing".
(2) Deciding where he stands regarding his authority to act, is entirely arbitrary.
(3) He can decide on his own, apparently without consulting God or fellow human beings,
exactly what his place is, re: a snitch on a random 'neighbour'.
(4) Due regard for exact nature of evidence is not considered.
(5) Due regard for consequences of his action is not considered.
Do you want this random snitch for a neighbour?
How about if he was looking in your window at your gun collection,
and assuming you had no permits or ownership?
It does seem weird.
But these situations can turn up anywhere, all the time.
(1) We are in the row behind at a sports event.
Do we stop our legitimate purpose, watching the game,
and begin taking notes on the people in front of us?
Isn't that an awful lot like an unjustified police search?
How does that relate to "Do as you would be done by." ?
(2) A suspicious person is ahead of you at the ATM lineup.
You can even see their PIN number. They forget their card and wallet.
Do you take the money, just in case its ill-gotten gains?
Isn't that a lot like what police are doing now,
making assumptions and confiscating cash as "proceeds of crime"?
Whats the difference between that and possibly wrecking a home, or marriage
based on incomplete, inaccurate, or misinterpreted 'evidence'?
How would you feel if someone misreported something 'suspicious'
about your life to your spouse, and inadvertantly destroyed your family?
(3) Your co-worker phones in sick. He has a large family.
You see him later that day pull up and go inside a bar.
Do you inform his boss the next day, knowing he'll probably be fired?
What if:
a) He's acting as designated driver for his drunken friend, even though sick?
b) Picking up his wife at her work, cause they need the money, or
c) rushing to prevent a murder, cause someone thought their wife was cheating,
based on a note someone handed to them at a ball game....
Even this inkling of suspicion in regard to fairness
is too naive to really dig into the moral questions:
Perhaps even more importantly:
(1) What if he's snitching or not snitching for the wrong reasons?
(2) Suppose he noticed the man cheating, and told the wife:
Maybe he did that for the simple purpose of having sex with her himself.
There is no way to know his real motive for his actions
in choosing to snitch or not snitch on his 'neighbour'.
How then can we say "its good, no fault whatever you do" ?!?
Exactly. And more importantly, what if this is a mistake?
Sure, a person is guilty of their own actions, including lawlessness,
but how can putting someone who may not have the self-control needed
ever be justified?
This could be a form of negligence causing death, or unnecessary provocation,
or even assisted homicide.
No one is taking the woman's word to be of any importance:
some have even suggested her testimony be ignored.
Why should we believe in the motive of the observer,
spying on the married couple?
What if the observer's own actions and honesty are coloured by
envy, misogyny, or simple mischief?
Is it really an intelligent strategy to just
say "whatever. do whatever you feel like doing." ?
I really respect this poster, and his attempts to apply reason here.
But I have to call him out on several points:
(1) Its good not to be overwhelmed with worry about "what might or might not happen".
But its also good to delay action when you don't have all the facts, and there's no emergency.
But part of intelligent, thoughtful and responsible action is based on foreseeing consequences.
It cannot be an iron-rule that we must always (blindly) act on what we know in the present alone.
There are plenty of times where circumstances permit caution and delay in taking action,
and where the best strategy is at least waiting for more information.
This has all the appearance of a situation where not only is everyone lacking enough information,
but also, there is no clear emergency, and there are plenty of intelligent options for
those compelled to take some kind of ethical response.
(2) 'Better to sort it out sooner than later'?
Again, every situation is different, and while we should avoid procrastinating,
or delaying taking steps, whether preventative, damage control, or even punitive,
we also have to take seriously the many cases where delay is absolutely appropriate,
even when the situation is stressful.
The word of Jesus specifically addresses the possibility of situations that seem to
call for immediate action, but where wisdom instead dictates delay:
But when the crop had sprouted, then the weeds also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ The Owner said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the weeds you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’
Matt. 13:28-30)
Not surprisingly, this may be one of those very situations
that the Lord Jesus was referring to, in giving strategies
to the people of God.
I think here actually Post #27 responds in part to this approach:
There is an assumption being made by Poster #10,11:
(1) that the woman is guilty (cf. Man born blind - Jn 9)
While we should take evidence of our own eyes seriously,
we are also cautioned not to judge superficially or hastily,
but to judge carefully, accurately and righteously.
That means taking appropriate measures to gather all the facts.
Even then, Jesus appears to be talking about 'judging' for ourselves,
that is 'discerning', not actually acting as judge, jury and executioner
on real people, but rather recognizing sin and sinners,
and basing our interactions with them accordingly.
(2) Here one poster seems to be acting as judge, jury and executioner,
because the kind of action they want to take against a 'suspect'
will have very serious consequences for any marriage, children
and other relationships. This remains an ethos opposite to the
ethos cited in the Scriptural references, which suggest that
God alone will do that kind of judging,
and that eventual righteous judgement is certain.
This poster is now inclining to recommend simply telling the man.
But the logic here needs to be closely examined:
(1) What overrides concern for consequences is "doing the right thing".
But a few posts ago,
this same poster suggested that doing EITHER thing was "the right thing",
since the consequences were predetermined (i.e., she would be found out regardless).
(2) In order for a thinking man of conscience to allow "doing the right thing" to
override concern for possible consequences,
he must surely be convinced that he is in fact absolutely doing the right thing,
and must believe this so strongly that he is confident that ANY consequences
will be eventually dealt with and corrected.
This poster comes from a background of military training,
and while we appreciate the usefulness of that training for warfare,
we must seriously question its applicability in peacetime in our own homes
and neighbourhoods.
In wartime, one must act overcautiously to the point of paranoia and hyper-altertness.
One must strike preemptively and rapidly for self preservation,
sometimes with dire consequences for innocent people.
A slight rustle in the dark might mean machine-gunning a child cowering in a bush.
We all hope and pray that in those extreme circumstances God will rectify and compensate
the extreme injustices of warfare and battlefield.
But we don't want to import those conditions and those strategies into our peaceful
homelands and neighbourhoods. We are seeing right now the consequences of
Battlefield goggles in ordinary law enforcement, and the obvious drawbacks.
In this particular situation, its not at all clear what "the right thing" is,
or if there is only one option for the 'right thing', or if ANY option is the 'right thing'.
This poster offers a very necessary caution:
Namely that we don't know the facts,
and the choices of the observer may very well be coloured with good intentions,
and/or sympathy with one possible victim,
these same choices are also lacking any real understanding of the situation,
and lacking a sense of fairness, and any sense of the potentially bad or dangerous consequences
of misunderstanding.
Caution is surely mandatory here.
I like this post; for one thing he tries to address my concerns in a previous post.
There is a powerful statement in 1st Tim. 5:20.
However, I would caution that this action is recommended in a church context,
as a means of disciplining the church and its members,
and is not a recommendation for how the church should interact with
individual strangers in the marketplace.
I'm not sure that rules for the church in regard to moral and ethical behaviour
has much to do with military discipline and/or hazing,
which seems to me to have far more to do with controlling soldiers and obedience to orders,
than it has to do with morality.
There may be some parallel there, but Paul's advice for the church
hardly justifies modern psychological techniques for soldiering,
especially the questionable morality of modern armies.
The problem here seems to be twofold.
(1) This poster may be honourable and self-disciplined enough to "take if trom there"
and determine the truth or circumstances of any allegations,
but can anyone safely apply this to a stranger?
What if this man is the jealous type, and kills his wife?
What if he is not a thorough investigator or being obviously personally involved
has his judgement clouded by jealousy or rage?
Who is going to take the responsibility of protecting the woman from
domestic violence or abuse?
Just telling a stranger you think their wife is cheating on them
is an awfully irresponsible solution to a difficult problem like this.
(2) Are you sure your own judgement isn't clouded by your own personal "need to know"?
Do you really need to know every time some stranger thinks your spouse may be acting inappropriately?
Would you want to live in a world where others are constantly second-guessing
and interfering with your relationship with your spouse?
You can say you're relationship is strong enough for such harrassment,
but if so, why wouldn't you just trust your spouse in the first place,
and ignore all such attacks on your marriage?
One of the big, big problems within the Church that Paul had to deal with
was GOSSIP, and it seems to me that this type of scenario falls into
the interfering, superfluous and dangerous gossip category.
Gossip is forbidden in the N.T. for a reason:
It leads to endless strife and separates the best of friends.
will not leave their people, or their neighbors, in confusion.
Yet there is a lot of confusion in this thread.
I tremble to appoint myself a teacher,
but I am compelled like Job's fourth young friend,
to speak a word on behalf of God's own word.
Let me first prove there is plenty of confusion:
| Post #2: The guy would have found out eventually... (liars and cheats always end up getting exposed). I see nothing wrong with exposing them at the first opportunity. |
Whats wrong here?
(1) the assumption of guilt.
(2) the admission it makes no difference - liars are exposed.
(3) yet there's apparently nothing wrong with exposing them, even prior to establishment of wrongdoing.
(4) in another post, same poster recommends disregarding consequences of actions:
"Do the right thing." But if anything is the right thing, what is 'the right thing'?
The plain suggestion here is that it makes no difference what the observer does.
Whatever he does is a-okay. He can do no wrong.
Is that really true according to the word of God?
| Post #3: He did the right thing, though I wouldn't have faulted him for deciding it wasn't his place to do anything in that situation either. |
No fault situation?
(1) Apparently again, whatever he does, its "the right thing".
(2) Deciding where he stands regarding his authority to act, is entirely arbitrary.
(3) He can decide on his own, apparently without consulting God or fellow human beings,
exactly what his place is, re: a snitch on a random 'neighbour'.
(4) Due regard for exact nature of evidence is not considered.
(5) Due regard for consequences of his action is not considered.
Do you want this random snitch for a neighbour?
How about if he was looking in your window at your gun collection,
and assuming you had no permits or ownership?
| Post #3 I wonder why the guy was reading someone elses phone... that seems weird to me |
It does seem weird.
But these situations can turn up anywhere, all the time.
(1) We are in the row behind at a sports event.
Do we stop our legitimate purpose, watching the game,
and begin taking notes on the people in front of us?
Isn't that an awful lot like an unjustified police search?
How does that relate to "Do as you would be done by." ?
(2) A suspicious person is ahead of you at the ATM lineup.
You can even see their PIN number. They forget their card and wallet.
Do you take the money, just in case its ill-gotten gains?
Isn't that a lot like what police are doing now,
making assumptions and confiscating cash as "proceeds of crime"?
Whats the difference between that and possibly wrecking a home, or marriage
based on incomplete, inaccurate, or misinterpreted 'evidence'?
How would you feel if someone misreported something 'suspicious'
about your life to your spouse, and inadvertantly destroyed your family?
(3) Your co-worker phones in sick. He has a large family.
You see him later that day pull up and go inside a bar.
Do you inform his boss the next day, knowing he'll probably be fired?
What if:
a) He's acting as designated driver for his drunken friend, even though sick?
b) Picking up his wife at her work, cause they need the money, or
c) rushing to prevent a murder, cause someone thought their wife was cheating,
based on a note someone handed to them at a ball game....
| Post #6 I wonder if the roles had been reversed and he witnessed the man making a similar text, if he would have notified the woman. |
Even this inkling of suspicion in regard to fairness
is too naive to really dig into the moral questions:
Perhaps even more importantly:
(1) What if he's snitching or not snitching for the wrong reasons?
(2) Suppose he noticed the man cheating, and told the wife:
Maybe he did that for the simple purpose of having sex with her himself.
There is no way to know his real motive for his actions
in choosing to snitch or not snitch on his 'neighbour'.
How then can we say "its good, no fault whatever you do" ?!?
| Post #7 Mr. Cuckold checks her phone and breaks her neck? Unintended consequences happen. |
Exactly. And more importantly, what if this is a mistake?
Sure, a person is guilty of their own actions, including lawlessness,
but how can putting someone who may not have the self-control needed
ever be justified?
This could be a form of negligence causing death, or unnecessary provocation,
or even assisted homicide.
No one is taking the woman's word to be of any importance:
some have even suggested her testimony be ignored.
Why should we believe in the motive of the observer,
spying on the married couple?
What if the observer's own actions and honesty are coloured by
envy, misogyny, or simple mischief?
Is it really an intelligent strategy to just
say "whatever. do whatever you feel like doing." ?
| Post #8 You can't base your moral decisions on what might or might not happen. You have to judge in the circumstances present. I would say that it is better to get the issue sorted out sooner rather than later. Divorce, reconciliation, whatever - it is better and least harmful to all concerned to get it worked out right away. But it isn't that people need exposure as if they should be punished. It is for the sake of resolving the case. It is not your job, as the bystander, to make any judgements or, if you do, keep them to yourself. Your neutrality at this point is very valuable to a proper resolution of the situation. You don't know if the husband is beating the wife and she is looking for a way out or something like that. |
I really respect this poster, and his attempts to apply reason here.
But I have to call him out on several points:
(1) Its good not to be overwhelmed with worry about "what might or might not happen".
But its also good to delay action when you don't have all the facts, and there's no emergency.
But part of intelligent, thoughtful and responsible action is based on foreseeing consequences.
It cannot be an iron-rule that we must always (blindly) act on what we know in the present alone.
There are plenty of times where circumstances permit caution and delay in taking action,
and where the best strategy is at least waiting for more information.
This has all the appearance of a situation where not only is everyone lacking enough information,
but also, there is no clear emergency, and there are plenty of intelligent options for
those compelled to take some kind of ethical response.
(2) 'Better to sort it out sooner than later'?
Again, every situation is different, and while we should avoid procrastinating,
or delaying taking steps, whether preventative, damage control, or even punitive,
we also have to take seriously the many cases where delay is absolutely appropriate,
even when the situation is stressful.
The word of Jesus specifically addresses the possibility of situations that seem to
call for immediate action, but where wisdom instead dictates delay:
But when the crop had sprouted, then the weeds also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ The Owner said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the weeds you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’
Matt. 13:28-30)
Not surprisingly, this may be one of those very situations
that the Lord Jesus was referring to, in giving strategies
to the people of God.
Post #10, #11 The man needs to know that his wife is a dirty hoe (Heb 13:4). The man needs to protect himself and his children. (Pr 11:21) |
I think here actually Post #27 responds in part to this approach:
| Post #27 I don't think it is really worth responding to this kind of stuff. But just this once to let you understand that the very scripture you cite is against you. It says that God will judge them. Not you. Trying to do God's work for him because it makes you feel somehow important is not a solution to anything...." |
There is an assumption being made by Poster #10,11:
(1) that the woman is guilty (cf. Man born blind - Jn 9)
While we should take evidence of our own eyes seriously,
we are also cautioned not to judge superficially or hastily,
but to judge carefully, accurately and righteously.
That means taking appropriate measures to gather all the facts.
Even then, Jesus appears to be talking about 'judging' for ourselves,
that is 'discerning', not actually acting as judge, jury and executioner
on real people, but rather recognizing sin and sinners,
and basing our interactions with them accordingly.
(2) Here one poster seems to be acting as judge, jury and executioner,
because the kind of action they want to take against a 'suspect'
will have very serious consequences for any marriage, children
and other relationships. This remains an ethos opposite to the
ethos cited in the Scriptural references, which suggest that
God alone will do that kind of judging,
and that eventual righteous judgement is certain.
| Post #13 ...moral decisions should be based on right and wrong, but nothing else. Do right, and risk the consequences. |
This poster is now inclining to recommend simply telling the man.
But the logic here needs to be closely examined:
(1) What overrides concern for consequences is "doing the right thing".
But a few posts ago,
this same poster suggested that doing EITHER thing was "the right thing",
since the consequences were predetermined (i.e., she would be found out regardless).
(2) In order for a thinking man of conscience to allow "doing the right thing" to
override concern for possible consequences,
he must surely be convinced that he is in fact absolutely doing the right thing,
and must believe this so strongly that he is confident that ANY consequences
will be eventually dealt with and corrected.
This poster comes from a background of military training,
and while we appreciate the usefulness of that training for warfare,
we must seriously question its applicability in peacetime in our own homes
and neighbourhoods.
In wartime, one must act overcautiously to the point of paranoia and hyper-altertness.
One must strike preemptively and rapidly for self preservation,
sometimes with dire consequences for innocent people.
A slight rustle in the dark might mean machine-gunning a child cowering in a bush.
We all hope and pray that in those extreme circumstances God will rectify and compensate
the extreme injustices of warfare and battlefield.
But we don't want to import those conditions and those strategies into our peaceful
homelands and neighbourhoods. We are seeing right now the consequences of
Battlefield goggles in ordinary law enforcement, and the obvious drawbacks.
In this particular situation, its not at all clear what "the right thing" is,
or if there is only one option for the 'right thing', or if ANY option is the 'right thing'.
Post #14 That's just it ... the bystander only knows that the idea of *one of his own* possibly being cheated on offends him. He doesn't know the couple or have any idea what is going on inside their marriage. IF he truly felt he needed to say something, it should have been to the wife, not the husband. It's not like the guy actually knew the couple. |
This poster offers a very necessary caution:
Namely that we don't know the facts,
and the choices of the observer may very well be coloured with good intentions,
and/or sympathy with one possible victim,
these same choices are also lacking any real understanding of the situation,
and lacking a sense of fairness, and any sense of the potentially bad or dangerous consequences
of misunderstanding.
Caution is surely mandatory here.
| Post #29 Your basic instruction comes from the risen Lord Jesus Christ, not his earthly ministry to Israel. That isn't to say what he taught them might not apply, but you go with what he told Paul after the fact. 1 Timothy 5 20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. Humiliation and the stripping of pride goes a long way. There is a reason certain DoD branches do it to recruits. And it isn't to be mean. As for Matthew 18, keep reading. 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. |
I like this post; for one thing he tries to address my concerns in a previous post.
There is a powerful statement in 1st Tim. 5:20.
However, I would caution that this action is recommended in a church context,
as a means of disciplining the church and its members,
and is not a recommendation for how the church should interact with
individual strangers in the marketplace.
I'm not sure that rules for the church in regard to moral and ethical behaviour
has much to do with military discipline and/or hazing,
which seems to me to have far more to do with controlling soldiers and obedience to orders,
than it has to do with morality.
There may be some parallel there, but Paul's advice for the church
hardly justifies modern psychological techniques for soldiering,
especially the questionable morality of modern armies.
| Post #31 If I saw your spouse texting the type of messages (this woman did) to another woman, would you want me to tell you, or just keep it secret? I would want to be told. And I could take it from there to confront him and determine what is going on between he & she. |
The problem here seems to be twofold.
(1) This poster may be honourable and self-disciplined enough to "take if trom there"
and determine the truth or circumstances of any allegations,
but can anyone safely apply this to a stranger?
What if this man is the jealous type, and kills his wife?
What if he is not a thorough investigator or being obviously personally involved
has his judgement clouded by jealousy or rage?
Who is going to take the responsibility of protecting the woman from
domestic violence or abuse?
Just telling a stranger you think their wife is cheating on them
is an awfully irresponsible solution to a difficult problem like this.
(2) Are you sure your own judgement isn't clouded by your own personal "need to know"?
Do you really need to know every time some stranger thinks your spouse may be acting inappropriately?
Would you want to live in a world where others are constantly second-guessing
and interfering with your relationship with your spouse?
You can say you're relationship is strong enough for such harrassment,
but if so, why wouldn't you just trust your spouse in the first place,
and ignore all such attacks on your marriage?
One of the big, big problems within the Church that Paul had to deal with
was GOSSIP, and it seems to me that this type of scenario falls into
the interfering, superfluous and dangerous gossip category.
Gossip is forbidden in the N.T. for a reason:
It leads to endless strife and separates the best of friends.
Darn tootin' (Eph 5:11). :BillyBob:
Depends, are you certain for a fact that is what was going on, or are you depending on what you think it might be.
I understand that you would like to be left in the dark that your husband is messaging to another female about how badly he wants to be with her instead of you.
That's you.
I would want to be told about it.
That's me.
That is a great word that needs to be used more to describe many Americans.
I like to think that I am close enough to my husband that I would already know something was going on if he was, but that's irrelevant to a total stranger who perhaps might be making up something, or not actually know what was happening, who knows neither of us and made a snap decision on what he thought was happening which required him to both eavesdrop deliberately (which already throws his morality into question) and then fill in the blanks of what he believed he saw (if even thats what he saw) about total strangers.
She could have been talking to her brother and upset that she felt like she had to go to a ballgame for example. We dont know. Id rather err on the side of caution and not cause trouble where there may not be any reason at all to cause any.
RCLady
New member
There is no evidence whatsoever that the woman was cheating. A few relevant quotes from the man in question:
There you have it. He becomes irritated by words that aren't even addressed to him and bears a grudge against her because of it. He admits to drinking and being tipsy, so he wasn't even sober. He then goes out of his way to read this woman's private texts, takes a picture of her and the note which contains his rash judgment, and posts it for all the world to see.
Any honest person can see there's nothing praiseworthy in the hasty imprudence of his actions. The man was wrong to do what he did. He ought to be ashamed of himself.
There you have it. He becomes irritated by words that aren't even addressed to him and bears a grudge against her because of it. He admits to drinking and being tipsy, so he wasn't even sober. He then goes out of his way to read this woman's private texts, takes a picture of her and the note which contains his rash judgment, and posts it for all the world to see.
Any honest person can see there's nothing praiseworthy in the hasty imprudence of his actions. The man was wrong to do what he did. He ought to be ashamed of himself.
Exactly, a drunk with a grudge towards women, decided this was his opportunity to get back at one even though he didn't know the participants, prior history or present situation.
Last edited: