# i am not having an affair I am faithful to him



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

The pastor went to the house of the church lady that is having an affair with a married man when she is single. When asked if she is having an affair she said 
"No pastor I am not. I am faithful to him. its him having an affair with me against his wife. i have no husband" 


Please discuss this view point. it is a new one on me.


----------



## manwithnoname (Feb 3, 2017)

It's her rationalizing to remain guilt free.


----------



## TJW (Mar 20, 2012)

A strict definition of adultery is sexual relations of a married person with someone other than his/her spouse. Some people may internalize that since the 10 commandments include a condemnation of adultery, and not one of fornication, adultery is therefore a "greater sin".

Since this woman is unmarried, she is not guilty of adultery, in the strict sense. Of course, I don't buy it, I'm just speculating what may be the logic of her statements.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

MaiChi said:


> Please discuss this view point. it is a new one on me.


From a religious point of view the pastor’s obligation to maintain confidentiality is not only a moral obligation, but also a legal one. Even if this information were divulged via a third party, a public discussion could place this pastor at risk of loosing credibility within the community. 

From a point of view that disregards religion, if this pastor went into this woman's house alone and remained there with her for fifteen minutes behind closed doors, by legal definition in many states the pastor (if married) just committed adultery as well. 

Not a good situation!


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

When someone is an affair partner but not married themselves, they can rationalize guilt away by saying it's not THEM committing adultery. They didn't make any vows to anybody. That they are helping someone else do it is irrelevant to them.

It's bull****. How selfish do you have to be to participate in hurting an innocent family like that?


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

Hopeful Cynic said:


> When someone is an affair partner but not married themselves, they can rationalize guilt away by saying it's not THEM committing adultery. They didn't make any vows to anybody. That they are helping someone else do it is irrelevant to them.
> 
> It's bull****. How selfish do you have to be to participate in hurting an innocent family like that?


Are we saying that mistresses/toyboys/lovers who are not themselves married and have not made any vows to anyone, are still obliged to look after other people's marriages even though those people do not seem to care about their marriages themselves? If so, why? Is it society's responsibility to ensure the integrity of the members; marriages or is it the individual member's responsibility? 

I have never thought about this till this case highlighted the problem with marriages and affairs. Is it valid for a married person to go and confront the person with whom their spouse is having an affair? I have always thought it is not a valid thing to do since the other person has no contract with them.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

badsanta said:


> From a religious point of view the pastor’s obligation to maintain confidentiality is not only a moral obligation, but also a legal one. Even if this information were divulged via a third party, a public discussion could place this pastor at risk of loosing credibility within the community.
> 
> From a point of view that disregards religion, if this pastor went into this woman's house alone and remained there with her for fifteen minutes behind closed doors, by legal definition in many states the pastor (if married) just committed adultery as well.
> 
> Not a good situation!


The pastor and his companion were asked to leave the house of the mistress and she lost her temper when the pastor insisted on asking her questions and she shouted at them in the street. It is the house third from ours. There was no confidentiality to speak of. She broadcast it herself in obvious anger.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

MaiChi said:


> The pastor went to the house of the church lady that is having an affair with a married man when she is single. When asked if she is having an affair she said
> "No pastor I am not. I am faithful to him. its him having an affair with me against his wife. i have no husband"
> 
> 
> Please discuss this view point. it is a new one on me.


The pastor is barking up the wrong tree. He should be camping out at the married man's house and telling him how much of an adulterer he is.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

MaiChi said:


> Are we saying that mistresses/toyboys/lovers who are not themselves married and have not made any vows to anyone, are still obliged to look after other people's marriages even though those people do not seem to care about their marriages themselves? If so, why? Is it society's responsibility to ensure the integrity of the members; marriages or is it the individual member's responsibility?


I don't think it's society's responsibility to look after other people's marriages. I agree with you that the person who made the vows is the one responsible for setting boundaries and obliging their promises.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

> Hebrews 13:4 English Standard Version (ESV)
> 4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 6:18 English Standard Version (ESV)
> ...


She is coming between a married couple and the covenant they have with God and each other. She is as much in the wrong as he is.


----------



## NJ2 (Mar 22, 2017)

Isn't there a line during marriage vows -what God has joined together let no man put asunder 
I would think that means the single person also should not interfere with the marital union under the church laws
This is just an approximation


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

2ntnuf said:


> She is coming between a married couple and the covenant they have with God and each other. She is as much in the wrong as he is.


If you talk to a lot of women you will get the idea that once a man is married, he gets a tiny bit more attractive to those women who are not married. But whether he is attractive or not, it is his responsibility to know which woman he is married to. The mistress does not budge into anyone's marriage. She is invited. Are we saying she should feel obliged to say NO? 

She is not coming between anything in my view. If one of the spouses invites her in, in means the marriage is not valid and she is the evidence of how dead the marriage is rather than the cause of death. If not her the mistress it will be someone else. The man does not know where the line is. 

I should know which man I am married to. My husband should know which woman he is married to.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

MaiChi said:


> If you talk to a lot of women you will get the idea that once a man is married, he gets a tiny bit more attractive to those women who are not married. But whether he is attractive or not, it is his responsibility to know which woman he is married to. The mistress does not budge into anyone's marriage. She is invited. *Are we saying she should feel obliged to say NO? *
> 
> She is not coming between anything in my view. If one of the spouses invites her in, in means the marriage is not valid and she is the evidence of how dead the marriage is rather than the cause of death. If not her the mistress it will be someone else. The man does not know where the line is.
> 
> I should know which man I am married to. My husband should know which woman he is married to.


First, I want to bring to your attention the quotes I posted. I did that because you said it was a Christian family and mistress. Well, according to what I posted, she is dead wrong in her thinking. 

Now, if you don't believe(atheist or something else), that is fine, but wouldn't personal integrity stop you from pursuing a married man? If it doesn't, it should. And now, to address the sentence in bold, yes, I do think she has an obligation to herself to say no. 

On one hand, those two are perfect for each other, since they are both cheaters. On the other hand, they are hurting his wife. Yes, both of them are hurting his wife.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

2ntnuf said:


> First, I want to bring to your attention the quotes I posted. I did that because you said it was a Christian family and mistress. Well, according to what I posted, she is dead wrong in her thinking.
> 
> Now, if you don't believe(atheist or something else), that is fine, but wouldn't personal integrity stop you from pursuing a married man? If it doesn't, it should. And now, to address the sentence in bold, yes, I do think she has an obligation to herself to say no.
> 
> On one hand, those two are perfect for each other, since they are both cheaters. On the other hand, they are hurting his wife. Yes, both of them are hurting his wife.


I have said this many times and I mean it. If I have an affair, I would not then try to save my marriage. I would simply walk away from it. If my husband has an affair I would not be expected to fight over him or to think about forgiving him. This is because my mind says an affair is as deliberate as deliberate gets in showing absolute and unadulterated disrespect on your spouse. So that says to me that if they say they are Christians and they respect their faith, then they really should separate. The Bible uses adultery as an example of behaviour of human against God to show that sinning is deliberate. 

It is not possible to have an affair by mistake. Only deliberate. 

So the pastor is trying to save what has already totally broken. The confusion is apparent from the logic of the mistress and the pastor visiting her as if she holds the key. She does not. The man had a key then he lost it.

It is how I see it. If another man approaches me for an illicit relationship, I decide. My husband will not be there. Just me. It is not a complex decision.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

MaiChi said:


> I have said this many times and I mean it. If I have an affair, I would not then try to save my marriage. I would simply walk away from it. If my husband has an affair I would not be expected to fight over him or to think about forgiving him. This is because my mind says an affair is as deliberate as deliberate gets in showing absolute and unadulterated disrespect on your spouse. So that says to me that if they say they are Christians and they respect their faith, then they really should separate. The Bible uses adultery as an example of behaviour of human against God to show that sinning is deliberate.
> 
> It is not possible to have an affair by mistake. Only deliberate.
> 
> ...


I see what you are trying to tell me. However, the AP has a responsibility in this. It really is not a sin without an AP. Only one of them had to say no. While the AP is not her problem, the husband is, I've read plenty of recommendations to let everyone know what was going on. Does that eliminate the AP? 

However, I'd be surprised if a pastor would not go to both parties when they are both among his/her flock. I think that would be negligent. It's his duty to let them know they are both wrong and direct them to stop sinning. I think that's where we are thinking differently.


----------



## bkyln309 (Feb 1, 2015)

The Christian couple fall under those obligations as they made those vows before God and man. The pastor had no grounds to go to the mistress unless she was a member of his flock. But the adultery lies at the foot of the cheating married partner. Funny he went to the woman and not the man. The single person took no vow before God. While she may be fornicating, she is not committing adultery.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

bkyln309 said:


> The Christian couple fall under those obligations as they made those vows before God and man. The pastor had no grounds to go to the mistress unless she was a member of his flock. But the adultery lies at the foot of the cheating married partner. Funny he went to the woman and not the man. The single person took no vow before God. While she may be fornicating, she is not committing adultery.


I think women are easy targets for such as pastors. I like the idea of pastors but i think they are mostly misguided and like to maintain the status quo. It is not right to try and save a marriage which has died a natural death. If the man is cheating, he obviously does not want his wife any more. As much as we have no idea whose fault it is that the man should feel he has to cheat, we need to always agree that before one cheats he/she must conclude the current relationship and then start another one. 

The pastor is several years too late for these spouses. They are no long worthy of marriage as it is known in their belief system.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

My religion differs in that it calls fornication Adultery. The definition of adultery to us is a person has sexual relations (not specifically intercourse) with a person that they are not legally married to. In this way the single person is as capable as the married person of committing adultery. There are many that fail to understand this doctrine to the point that they think that a single person can only commit adultery with a married person. This is an erroneous understanding. Just as the person in this thread who feels justified in sexual relations with a specific married person. Another poor understanding is the person married outside of church authority who believes e/she can date as if single because God does not recognize their civil vow. But that is all a twisted mess of definitions. Let's try a real case study.

There is a well known woman in a neighboring community. She is Single (I think, but for the sake of this case study we can assume). She has a real taste for married men. She works at a large company and for years she has been collecting bedpost notches by instigating sexual liaisons with coworkers. It's like a hobby to her. 
Does she harm marriages? YES
Does she break up families? Yes
Is there any way that we can justify her hobby? No it is simple selfishness. She uses her lovers for her own thrills, and thinks nothing of who is hurt.
Is she an adulterer? Well it depends on her church? Or is it simply enough to say that what she does is every bit as damaging as Adultery?
Should she have an obligation to say NO?
The absolute moralist will say her obligation is to be good and thus she is obliged to say no to her own lusts.
The relative moralist may say that she is breaking no promise and only doing what makes her happy. So she should be allowed or even encouraged to continue her quest.
MN


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

2ntnuf said:


> I see what you are trying to tell me. However, the AP has a responsibility in this. It really is not a sin without an AP. Only one of them had to say no. While the AP is not her problem, the husband is, I've read plenty of recommendations to let everyone know what was going on. Does that eliminate the AP?
> 
> However, I'd be surprised if a pastor would not go to both parties when they are both among his/her flock. I think that would be negligent. It's his duty to let them know they are both wrong and direct them to stop sinning. I think that's where we are thinking differently.


They both know they are wrong. that is why the mistress is rationalising the whole thing. 

The man has infinitely more responsibility in that it is his marriage that he is breaking. The mistress could be a victim too in that she has believed a dishonest man and now she is in a corner. But i would not say the pastor should bother with her. She is just available for the man and if she was not there would be someone else. The man is the issue. 

But also as women, we must not cause our husbands to feel that they are unwanted just like our husbands should not cause us to feel unwanted. 

If you cannot provide for your spouse's needs, and you are not ill mentally or physically. let them go. End the relationship and let them find happiness elsewhere. We all have other body parts other than the obvious, which we can use to pacify our spouses if needs be.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Ah, but the pastor is by profession a moral absolutist. So he is compelled to encourage the woman here to be selfless. To encourage the couple to reconcile and heal the marriage. The moral relativist in you says let them do what feels right to them. Divorce the wife of his youth and porcede with the single woman. Ignoring what the wife desires in the assumption that she doesn't want to be with some cheater anyway.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

MaiChi said:


> The pastor went to the house of the church lady that is having an affair with a married man when she is single. When asked if she is having an affair she said
> "No pastor I am not. I am faithful to him. its him having an affair with me against his wife. i have no husband"
> 
> Please discuss this view point. it is a new one on me.


According to the rules of my faith they are both guilty of adultery. 

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2380: Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, _of whom at least one is married to another party_, have sexual relations - even transient ones - _they_ commit adultery. 


According to the law in my state they are both guilty of adultery. 

750.30 Adultery; definition.
Sec. 30.
Definition – Adultery is the sexual intercourse of 2 persons, _either of whom_ is married to a third person.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

MaiChi said:


> They both know they are wrong. that is why the mistress is rationalising the whole thing.
> 
> The man has infinitely more responsibility in that it is his marriage that he is breaking. The mistress could be a victim too in that she has believed a dishonest man and now she is in a corner. But i would not say the pastor should bother with her. She is just available for the man and if she was not there would be someone else. The man is the issue.
> 
> ...


Well, I have to disagree.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

MJJEAN said:


> According to the rules of my faith they are both guilty of adultery.
> 
> Catechism of the Catholic Church 2380: Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, _of whom at least one is married to another party_, have sexual relations - even transient ones - _they_ commit adultery.
> 
> ...


You cannot commit adultery if you are not married, surely. That is fornication not adultery. 
In bigamy only one person is taken to court for the offence even though three people are involved. it is because the one who dupes the two is the one guilty. 

I used to live in a country where a spouse could take anyone who had sex with their spouse to court as it was an offence in that country like in your state, but if the third party could prove that they were duped, then they were not guilty. I do not agree with that type of law. My view is that only myself and my husband are responsible for the integrity of our marriage. 

All the other parties should take responsibility for theirs and not ours too. If one of us is not bothered about it, then it is that one who is destroying the marriage. It could be with a prostitute or a random sexual socialist, (one who likes putting it about). I cannot hold a prostitute responsible for my marriage's integrity. To me there is no difference between a mistress and a prostitute as their personal interests are the same.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

Mr. Nail said:


> Ah, but the pastor is by profession a moral absolutist. So he is compelled to encourage the woman here to be selfless. To encourage the couple to reconcile and heal the marriage. The moral relativist in you says let them do what feels right to them. Divorce the wife of his youth and porcede with the single woman. Ignoring what the wife desires in the assumption that she doesn't want to be with some cheater anyway.


That is correct. Encouraging her to try to rebuild the marriage is like encouraging her to accept him knowing he will cheat again soon. I am not sure if that is a moral stand point. I think the pastor should be telling her to get out before she gets a disease. That would be to protect her.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

MaiChi said:


> You cannot commit adultery if you are not married, surely. That is fornication not adultery.
> In bigamy only one person is taken to court for the offence even though three people are involved. it is because the one who dupes the two is the one guilty.
> 
> I used to live in a country where a spouse could take anyone who had sex with their spouse to court as it was an offence in that country like in your state, but if the third party could prove that they were duped, then they were not guilty. I do not agree with that type of law. My view is that only myself and my husband are responsible for the integrity of our marriage.
> ...


So, if someone pulls a knife on another and gets shot and killed, it's the shooter's fault because he put the bullet into the person who pulled the knife? 

The AP is the one with the knife. The married spouse is the one with the legally concealed handgun.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 23, 2017)

She lied. She reported not having an affair, but she was in an affair. Anyway, it's fornication.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

MaiChi said:


> You cannot commit adultery if you are not married, surely.


Well, according to multiple religions and laws in various states and countries, you can.

Think about it like this. Adultery is morally and/or legally a crime. As we know, accomplices and accessories to crimes can and do get prosecuted for the crime they participated in committing.

The married man in the situation you relayed to us is guilty of adultery because he is a married man having sex with a woman not his wife. The OW is also guilty of adultery for having sex with a married man. If someone was going to prosecute both of them, he'd be guilty of adultery as the principle and she's be guilty of adultery as an accomplice. Do accomplices get lesser sentences under the law? Yes. But they still get sentenced because they're still guilty of participating in a crime.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I have no problem with the idea that one person's sin is greater than another's. Even when the sins seem identical. A scale of sexual sin might look something like this:
Fornication between 2 unmarried young adults
.
enabling adultery by being secret keeper
.
Single person having sex with married person
Married person having sex with single person
Married person having sex with someone else's married spouse
.
.
incest, child sex abuse 
.
.
The sin of David (killing OWH to hide affair)

Obviously there is a lot that could fit in between the items I've mentioned. And of course I have no authority to rank these sins. 
Mostly there is plenty of pain to go around. It's hard to imagine thinking that there is innocence in this case.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

MJJEAN said:


> MaiChi said:
> 
> 
> > The pastor went to the house of the church lady that is having an affair with a married man when she is single. When asked if she is having an affair she said
> ...


That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.


----------



## TheHappyGuy (Aug 27, 2012)

Once again I'm glad that I don't subscribe to any religion. Therefore I do not have to try and find a suitable passage on some book on search of moral guidance. I am free to make up my mind by using my own moral compass. And it goes like this:

It is the married husband who should not have engaged in an extramarital sexual relationship. It is not clear who pursuit whom butt in any case it is the husband who is unfaithful, not the unmarried woman.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

TheHappyGuy said:


> It is the married husband who should not have engaged in an extramarital sexual relationship. It is not clear who pursuit whom butt in any case it is the husband who is unfaithful, not the unmarried woman.


It is possible that both people did something wrong.


----------



## cashcratebob (Jan 10, 2018)

The husband was unfaithful and morally wrong. The unmarried mistress was morally wrong.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

Quite simply, she is full of $h!t


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

Define fornication, adultery, and affairs, any way you want. It’s just semantics. What matters is the actions, not the words.

The mistress is being selfish to a degree I consider toxic, and she’s the sort of person I would have nothing to do with. She has a right to her values, and I have a right to mine. In the end, she will get hurt. I wonder if she will expect the same sympathy she is denying her boyfriend’s wife.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

Wazza said:


> Define fornication, adultery, and affairs, any way you want. It’s just semantics. What matters is the actions, not the words.
> 
> The mistress is being selfish to a degree I consider toxic, and she’s the sort of person I would have nothing to do with. She has a right to her values, and I have a right to mine. In the end, she will get hurt. I wonder if she will expect the same sympathy she is denying her boyfriend’s wife.


Some people work on a "Nothing to lose and everything to gain" level. 

For a young lady to feel bold enough to command the pastor to go out of her house for daring to tell her that she is having an affair with a married man, it means she is operating at an unusual level. Most other people would give the pastor at least a civil hearing and then choose to ignore his advice after he has left if they feel there is no merit in his advice. 

For me most people who have affairs or any type justify themselves before hand then keep repeating the justification so they do not take responsibility for their actions. 

My spouse does not understand me
My spouses refuses me sex
My spouse does not love me any more
My spouse has gone fat 
My spouse does not suit my image
My spouse is not good in bed
My spouse fights with me 
My spouse is not sexy

Always blaming the spouse. Well nothing wrong with a genuine complaint, but if one is there then terminate the relationship with the spouse and then be free to start a new one. 

I am one that agrees with islamic people when they stone an adulterer to death. i just wish they stoned both men and women as their book says. Adultery is one of the worst forms of disrespect and potential death from diseases. 

But my point was that the mistress really has no responsibility for anyone's relationship. the husband has. We only appeal to the mistress to help out the marriage by not continuing with the married man hoping that he goes back home, but while he is in that mood he will siply replace the mistress with another mistress. The pastor will then be on a mistress trail and the marriage will still collapse.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

cashcratebob said:


> The husband was unfaithful and morally wrong. The unmarried mistress was morally wrong.


People like her operate way outside what is known as morality. We cannot appeal to them on moral grounds.


----------



## Wazza (Jul 23, 2012)

MaiChi said:


> But my point was that the mistress really has no responsibility for anyone's relationship. the husband has. We only appeal to the mistress to help out the marriage by not continuing with the married man hoping that he goes back home, but while he is in that mood he will siply replace the mistress with another mistress. The pastor will then be on a mistress trail and the marriage will still collapse.


I agree that the husband is accountable. I disagree that the mistress gets a free pass. If the husband’s act were a crime, she would be at least an accessory to the crime.

Sometimes appealing to the mistress might work, often it won’t. Regardless, someone who chases married men is not someone I will associate with. She has her moral compass, and I have mine.


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

MaiChi said:


> If you talk to a lot of women you will get the idea that once a man is married, he gets a tiny bit more attractive to those women who are not married. But whether he is attractive or not, it is his responsibility to know which woman he is married to. The mistress does not budge into anyone's marriage. She is invited. Are we saying she should feel obliged to say NO?
> 
> She is not coming between anything in my view. If one of the spouses invites her in, in means the marriage is not valid and she is the evidence of how dead the marriage is rather than the cause of death. If not her the mistress it will be someone else. The man does not know where the line is.
> 
> I should know which man I am married to. My husband should know which woman he is married to.


Well first of all she ain’t no Christian, second of all she’s a thief and a destroyer of a family. The married man is more culpable


----------

