Page 5 of 6

Re: The walk of shame

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:56 pm
by ena
Ivy wrote: Maybe they were telling her it wasn't necessary. However, if she truly wanted to "go forward" as part of her healing process, why would they not want her to do it?
A physical act for some is more meaningful and can be strengthening. Straight shot Ivy.

Re: The walk of shame

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:05 pm
by B.H.
Hmmm. Maybe she was an attractive woman and if she confessed to adultery other men my try to lead her astray again. Who knows.

Re: The walk of shame

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:33 pm
by zeek
Maybe, they were afraid of whom else she might implicate or out in her confessions.

Re: The walk of shame

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:13 am
by ena
B.H. wrote:Hmmm. Maybe she was an attractive woman and if she confessed to adultery other men my try to lead her astray again. Who knows.
Usually a woman is attracted by relationships more than just sex. There are some exceptions but they are rare. The reason is than with sex she can get pregnant and it is a total body commitment. The memory of a relationship can be very troubling. I deal with that one not since marriage but before. You have the issue of STD's. There are many you may not know about. Human papiloma virus has several strains. One causes genital warts. That one is visible on the male. You have to look. Another strain gives cervical cancer. The delivery method is the male fooling around with infected people. I say people because gays often get anal cancer. Same cause. I know a gay who died with that. By the way vitamin D reduces inflamation in the prostate. This leads to cancer. UC at San Diego School of Medicine is big on Vitamin D research.
Google youtube vitamin d prostate cancer. Or link below to a forty-five minute lecture. The blood circulating form is 25 hydroxy D or (25(OH)D in doctor notation. The active form is 1,25(OH)2D. They used to think that was made in the kidney and it is. But it can be made by cells. This is new. Every cell in your body has a vitamin D receptor. It is a master hormone and not a vitamin. It affects colon cancer, breast cancer and leukemia. Your doctor may not know this. Leukemia is from a new study which is not yet available on the web. 45 mins below. It's interesting but very medical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrU1yrmNIqc

I take vitamin D3. The level you need to take is individual. Some more some less. Take the 25 Hydroxy Vitamin D test from your doctor. It's a blood test. I am at 43 ng/ml which means I am higher than most Americans. This is because most are deficient. On girls it can mean the pelvis is not big enough to have a baby. Such have c sections. Women waddle when they walk because their legs are set farther out from their wider hips. God intended that you get this from the sun. Today we have doctors telling us to get out of the sun because it causes skin cancer. Many use sun block. The darker your skin the less the sun in America will help. The difference between white and blacks probably happened from the relative solar levels. Is a vitamin D adaption. We are all the same color inside.

Re: The walk of shame

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:49 am
by Ivy
zeek wrote:Maybe, they were afraid of whom else she might implicate or out in her confessions.
Interesting point, zeek.

Re: The walk of shame

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:19 pm
by Moogy
Ivy wrote:
Lerk wrote:Closet atheist here, still going to a NI-CoC. Our elders recently refused to allow someone to take the walk of shame! Preacher's wife, and she cheated on him with another member of the congregation. He asked her to move out, which she did. Her side of the story is that she had repented of the relationship, she believed her husband had every right to end the marriage, and that she wanted to repent to the congregation. Not only was she not allowed to do so in person, they wouldn't even read a letter from her.

Never before heard of that happening!

Interesting!!! What was their rationale for not wanting her to do the shame walk?
If she does the walk, they will be expected to forgive her. Probably they don’t want to forgive her. :evil:

Re: The walk of shame

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:22 pm
by teresa
My guess is that they don't want her at their congregation, too embarrassing for her to be there along with preacher. Or they don't believe she is sincere. Or they are afraid of what she might say about the preacher. Usually a hardline CoC will not allow the partner who commits adultery to re-marry -- if they do, they will be withdrawn from. And they are leery of divorced people in general.

Re: The walk of shame

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:28 am
by Ivy
teresa wrote:My guess is that they don't want her at their congregation, too embarrassing for her to be there along with preacher. Or they don't believe she is sincere. Or they are afraid of what she might say about the preacher. Usually a hardline CoC will not allow the partner who commits adultery to re-marry -- if they do, they will be withdrawn from. And they are leery of divorced people in general.
"Slut shaming" is what they are calling it now. And yet, didn't someone once say something about casting the first stone? That said, if asked, I would suggest that one of them should leave the congregation and go to another; I don't care which one. I believe it's best for all concerned.

Re: The walk of shame

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:30 pm
by Lerk
Ivy wrote:
Shane R wrote:
Lerk wrote:Closet atheist here, still going to a NI-CoC. Our elders recently refused to allow someone to take the walk of shame! Preacher's wife, and she cheated on him with another member of the congregation. He asked her to move out, which she did. Her side of the story is that she had repented of the relationship, she believed her husband had every right to end the marriage, and that she wanted to repent to the congregation. Not only was she not allowed to do so in person, they wouldn't even read a letter from her.

Never before heard of that happening!
That is an outlier in my experience as well. I have NEVER heard of someone being refused to come forward.

Now I'm thinking of canon law in my own church (Orthodox Anglican Church) but I shall not comment on the case in this place.
Maybe they were telling her it wasn't necessary. However, if she truly wanted to "go forward" as part of her healing process, why would they not want her to do it?
I've heard a little of both sides of the story, and I'm inclined to think that her husband, the preacher, didn't want her to have the satisfaction of being "forgiven" by the people there, and the elders probably wanted to avoid the spectacle. Still, they should have offered to read a letter from her even if they didn't want her to be able to get all of the hugs that go along with the WoS. And that's exactly what she wanted... she wanted to see people one last time and say goodbye. (She told my wife and me so on the phone.)

At the same time, I don't think either of them wants to be married to each other any more, and both claim that it was never a good marriage. So they'll both move on. If she's convinced that the CoC is still the "right" church (and she seems to be) she'll maybe eventually end up in a mainline church where they'll accept her even if she's remarried. If she stays in an NI-CoC, she'll be single the rest of her life. I cannot see that happening.

It's sad, or it's starting off that way, but they may both find happiness as a result.

Re: The walk of shame

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:17 pm
by B.H.
You know, I hate to be a bummer but there are copies of the gospel that do not have the adultery clause in Jesus's speech about divorce and remarrying. There is actually a small group with in the one cup church that does not allow divorce and remarriage for any reason. I think they will accept you if you leave an abusive or cruel spouse and acceot you if you are divorced but will not allow you to remarry under any circumstance.

It's like that verse about coverings in I Corinthians. Some copies of I Corinthians say it should simply be a covering others specify "long hair". If I remember right, and I could be wrong, some copies do not have the discussion about women having coverings or long hair at all. On this double check me because it has been a while since I studied this.

Whoever said Bible variants did not affect doctrine was either very ignorant or a very big liar.