forgiveness of INTENTIONAL wrongs (sorry folks, having sex with someone else doesnt 'just happen')

correlates directly with remorse for those wrongs

true remorse virtually eliminates the chance of that INTENTIONAL act happening again

if it happens over and over, ,there wasnt truly remorse, so whether there is true forgiveness will no longer matter much,,,and distrust has been earned,,,,,


I can forgive and still be logically cautious

just like I could forgive someone passing on an std, unknowingly, and still take the precaution to avoid it happening in the future,,,

if someone cheats, I Can forgive them, and still be cautious to the FACT that it is within their moral capacity to do such a thing under the right circumstances,,,

Okay, firstly I'm not from England. It says quite clearly on my profile that I'm in Scotland.

Secondly, I did not say that I thought that afairs are cool. What I said was that I think that it's possible that a couple having problems in their relationship can find some sort of resolution after one of them has an afair.

Here's an example: Their sex life has broken down. The woman feels undesirable and she is unhappy. She has an afair. The husband finds out about it and becomes jealous. She says to him, "Why do you care? You don't want to have sex with me anyway. This afair is making me happy and if you loved me you would want me to be happy" Now, let's suppose that the couple are not actually married because that's arguably just a piece of paper. The couple were no longer having sex. A man and woman that are no longer having sex are not in a sexual relationship and that makes them only friends. They decided to stay friends, even though they felt that their relationship was over. Anyway, the woman going with someone else forces the issue. It causes arguments and then the friendship starts to break down. The guy may even have tried accepting the afair because he does love the woman or thinks of her as his best friend and he does want her to be happy. He wants to be happy as well though and it's tearing him apart that she's now with another man. He says to her that he doesn't think that they can be friends anymore because continuing to see her and being around her while he's feeling jealous is making him unhappy. Sometimes it is only when you lose somebody that you realise how much you really love them.

I got involved in a situation like this. They were not married. She told me that the guy was her ex but he was also her best friend. She finished it with me telling me that she couldn't bear to lose the other guy. She said that she had been thinking about getting back with him and giving it another go. I haven't heard from her since. I don't know if she did what she did to make the other guy jealous and she did actually lie to me about how long it had been since her last relationship. The woman was confused and all over the place. I don't think she knew what she wanted but she made her mind up in the end. Would they have been better off getting relationship counceling instead of her seeing me? Possibly but they didn't and their "relationship" was supposedly over. Their relationship had been on and off for five years and they were "on a break."

I got involved with someone that was still involved with somebody else and this is not the first time that I've been involved with a woman that's come out with this "we're just friends" jazz. When my ex did that we had been on and off for years and she refused to commit to me, saying that we were just "friends". I went along with the casual relationship but during one of our breaks she met somebody else. She told me that he was just a friend too. I told her that I didn't think that we should keep seeing each other because I couldn't handle it that she was involved with someone else. I forced her to choose. She chose him.

Sure will. Would cure horny.

I am asking you to explain what you mean by "truth" and/or "the truth". What words could we replace "truth" and "the truth" with without losing any meaning?



Since you raised the notion of Truth, it is only reasonable to explain what you mean, and perhaps what that has to do with the OP's question. Right?

It's more like killing time,i really have no issues with people who believe in "ancient desert tribal gods" stories made into a book that contains most of them to only look like one imaginary monotheistic god.Really they choose to believe in that mythological pantheon,just like others did before the Abrahamic Trilogy was written.
I just will never choose to pick a mythological pantheon and become delusional over it,because i think i will have an afterlife by having faith in a man made imaginary desert god or gods.I accept that humans decompose and that's it.Believe what you want but I even knew Dungeons and Dragons was just fantasy.

I was not talking to you.

There are still several points that were already raised which you have yet to have given due attention.

If the almighty imaginary creator was real there would be no debate over it's existence or any other mythological deity based pantheon.
If he was real he or it or she is one roguish,scared to come out of hiding deity.I mean he supposedly floats on a fluffy cloud under the "firmament?" in a castle where a renegade rabbi jew(jesus) sits on it's right side.Yeah sure i'm really going to accept that as truth?NO!

What? You want to define "real" when just about anyone who believes in a god will tell you that you can't define god. If god were to be defined by science, there wouldn't be a question.
What's left to define if you limit god to the physical realm? Are not others allowed to think for themselves? Do you assert that images in the brain are not real?

Actually, don't answer that... :-/

I took the time to respond to save an otherwise unwitting reader from being fooled. I have shown - in great detail - how/why what you've written is irrelevant to the question at hand. If you wish to argue against what I've claimed, then do so.

Just in case one didn't get the more complex points I've already raised, I'll be more direct and simple this time around...

Picturing a rose conjures up the memory of some thing that we can all point at. The existence of a rose is point-of-view-invariant. The existence of an imagined rose is not. Thus there is a clear difference between our imagining a rose and a rose. There is no possible distinction to be drawn and maintained between God and imagining a God. Thus, the line of thinking you've introduced does not lend itself to a good argument for the existence of God. God's existence is akin to our picturing a rose in our minds when no rose has been seen.

That is exactly why/how we have so many different religions. All those folk hold that what they think/believe about what they call "God" or "Allah" or whatever the case may be is true and what others believe is not.

The bit about truth is gibberish; prima facie evidence that you have no idea what truth is and/or the role that it plays in thought/belief and the statements that follow.

Why ought anyone here try to figure out why you would say anything at all? Your personal psychology is not the focus. Rather than instruct the reader to make sense of the words you write, why don't you say something clear, concise, and meaningful. Relevancy is always a plus too.The topic is "Is God real?" not why does Pan say the stuff he does.

Sigh.

I think there is something very important here. The word "rose" conjures up an image based on knowledge. The image isn't a real rose. It is memory. Memory tells us that roses exist.

Like the Rose, the word God points to all the knowledge that we have accumulated about God. God exists, God doesn't exist, the Mormons have it wrong because..., the Baptist are right because..., the Hindus this, Muslims that, so on and so on. Conflict in the world revolves around the knowledge that we hold on to, the knowledge we are unwilling to question, the knowledge we think everyone should agree with.

Do you see it?