Spiritual Adultery And Remarriage Revisited, What are the facts? Options

[inga]

First of all, I think it only fair to say that the term "spiritual" can and does have more than one usage. I agree that the traditional interpretation, when coupled with "adultery," clearly refers to leaving our "first love" Christ in search of other "lovers" (gods). However, it is also true that the term "spiritual" carries other meanings, and might be fairly applied to the sense of the term in which Jesus spoke of committing adultery in the heart.

Not without doing great violence to the English language. Dictionaries chronicle the way words are used by most speakers of the language. You'll find the most up-to-date data at www.dictionary.com. (Certainly older usage does not make room for the kind of usage you envision). Here are the defintions of "spiritual" from Dictionary.com:

spir·it·u·al
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.
2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life.
3. closely akin in interests, attitude, outlook, etc.: the professor's spiritual heir in linguistics.
4. of or pertaining to spirits or to spiritualists; supernatural or spiritualistic.
5. characterized by or suggesting predominance of the spirit; ethereal or delicately refined: She is more of a spiritual type than her rowdy brother.
6. of or pertaining to the spirit as the seat of the moral or religious nature.
7. of or pertaining to sacred things or matters; religious; devotional; sacred.
8. of or belonging to the church; ecclesiastical: lords spiritual and temporal.
9. of or relating to the mind or intellect.
–noun 10. a spiritual or religious song: authentic folk spirituals.
11. spirituals, affairs of the church.
12. a spiritual thing or matter.

Notice that the word is used in a sense implying religious exercise or a faculty of man distinguished from the body. It is not used in place of "mental" (e.g. fantasizing) or "emotional." As PrincessDi pointed out, there's nothing "spiritual" about lusting after a person.

So far I've not heard of anyone referring to lusting as spiritual adultery other than Dan Shelton and his supporters. One might expect it also of certain charismatics, considering their teachings, but I know of none for sure.

For example, Jesus also said that Lazarus was not dead. But he was dead. How then was he not dead? Spiritually.

While I appreciate your biblical arguments up to this point, I must take exception to your interpretation here. This kind of "spiritual" application allows us all sorts of strange doctrines. Let's take a look at what Jesus actually said, in context:

John 11.11-14
These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

Recognizing that a common way for Jews of the time to refer to a person dying was that he was going to "sleep with his fathers," what Jesus said makes perfect sense. When the disciples misunderstood to which kind of "sleep" he was referring, he told them plainly that Lazarus was dead.

Saying that Lazarus was "spiritually not dead" would imply that Jesus taught that there is spiritual life apart from the body. That is far from the truth. For clarification of this issue, please see Eternal Life: Gift of God or Man's Inherent Nature. If anything in that essay is not clear, please PM me.

Jesus also said that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive, which can only have been in a "spiritual" sense.

Again, let's take a look at the context to get a better picture of what Jesus meant:

I believe you're referring to the incident chronicles in Matthew 22.31, 32 and surrounding texts:
"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Jesus was speaking to the Sadducees who didn't believe in a resurrection. They had come to him with an "unsolvable" problem -- seven brothers who had been married to the same wife. Whose wife, they asked, would she be in the resurrection?

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (verses 29, 30) That answered their spoken question.

However, then Jesus got down to the real issue -- the resurrection which the Sadducees denied and the Pharisees affirmed. They had brought up this "problem" to make the doctrine of the resurrection seem rididulous. Jesus now confirms the doctrine of the resurrection by referring to familiar Scriptures of the time -- that God presented Himself as the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaace, and the God of Jacob. What would be the sense if these men had passed into eternal annihilation?

By contrast, Jesus affirmed the resurrection by saying God is a God of the living -- seeing that the state between the end of physical life and the resurrection was commonly understood as a sleep, or a suspension of life, rather than annihilation, this made sense. (The Hebrews knew nothing of a soul distince from a body or of any existence separate from the body. Please reference the URL I gave above where I give the biblical basis for my statement here.)

I do agree with your arguments in the "Questions for Joe" thread you referenced and in the rest of this post to which I responded. Thank you for saying it so well.

[HUGGINS130]

regardless the term spiritual adultery doesn't mean one should go out and divorce their spouse...there are reasons a man and woman should probably divorce, but spiritual adultery isn't one...I guess we can say I am off lurk mode at the present time...

[Green Cochoa]

Inga,

I recognize that your interpretation of those verses regarding Lazarus, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the traditional interpretation. I'm really not wishing to argue this point, but perhaps, for the sake of clearing up any misunderstanding of them, I will try to clarify a little.

Actually, it is surprising to me that more people have not understood this. Remember, God lives in the present. He is the "I AM." When Jesus says, therefore, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living," He is speaking in present tense for a reason. This is not making reference to the future resurrection directly. Indirectly, yes, it does imply that the patriarchs will be raised in Christ. But Lazarus is a big clue here to what Jesus was trying to teach. Jesus clearly said Lazarus was not dead, only asleep. Once again, using the present tense. Once again, Lazarus is physically dead at the time of that statement.

You see, "spiritually" (if you will please allow me to use the term this way for I honestly know of no other word to apply here), Lazarus was alive. In the same way that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive. In the same way that you or I can be alive through Christ.

Contrast this with Jesus' scathing rebuke to the Pharisees that they were as "whited sepulchres" filled with "dead men's bones!" Obviously, Jesus saw them as "walking dead" (spiritually dead while physically alive). Lazarus and the patriarchs were physically dead while spiritually alive.

To go a step further, and this is a major point of the gospel which many theologians have never comprehended, Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Jesus proceeds to tell everyone things like:

(To Lazarus' sister)
John 11:24-26 "Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

I would ask of you this same question. Do you believe that by believing in Jesus you will never die?

(To Nicodemus)
John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

This is in present tense. If you believe, you have (now) everlasting life. It's not really a big mystery! It's just that Jesus thinks on a spiritual plane, whereas our minds tend to focus on the temporal and physical realm.

I appreciate your kindness in discussing this, and I know that these concepts are not easy to understand. Nicodemus, Martha, and I too--we all have difficulty grasping the beauty of this message. But Jesus would not have expressed it to his dearest friends, and to the scholar Nicodemus, if He felt it was too much for their understanding--unless, of course, it was more for our benefit.

[Green Cochoa]

Inga,

Going back over what you have said, and reflecting on what you may have thought I was saying, I have seen a few things I should clarify further.

First, regarding those deceased who are "spiritually" alive: They are in the grave. They have no "spirit" floating around in heaven. I'm not promoting any strange doctrine here at all. I'm well acquainted with such as Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, Psalm 115:17, etc. and in full agreement with them. However, why is it that we speak of people being "asleep in Jesus?" The Bible speaks of it in these terms. I have to assume that Paul understood the concept of spiritual death and life, versus physical death or life, for in 1 Corinthians 15:51 he speaks of this "mystery" and says "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed."

If we consider this for but a moment, it quickly surfaces that only the living can sleep. But why then do we speak of the "dead" sleeping? It is because Jesus looks at it from a different perspective. Life and death can be physical or spiritual. Those who deny God and reject Him choose death for themselves. Those who choose Christ, choose life. This "spiritual" life is that only which can have eternal consequence. The physical state of death or life is only temporary.

When Jesus died on the cross, it is my understanding that He died not just the ordinary physical death, but the spiritual death that we each deserve for our sins. This was to give us spiritual life.

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10:10

Now, the link to the essay you included opens a whole 'nother can of worms! For the Bible teaches that the fire of hell is eternal--but now you will really think I'm strange! Best we leave that for another thread.

Now, I'm not sure why you have taken issue with my saying the word "spiritual" can have more than one usage. You have, yourself, dredged up multiple meanings for the word. I agree that there is nothing "righteous" about lustful thoughts, but it is still very much an issue affecting one's spirituality. I've heard the term "spiritual suicide" more than once, and I think it simply means to divorce oneself from God, the Source of life, through one's choices and actions. So, I am looking at "spiritual adultery" in a similar light.

Jesus said spiritual things are spiritually discerned, which points to a realm of understanding beyond the physical realm so common to us. Yes, you can say that it means the Holy Spirit will enlighten the understanding. However, I think it means more than just that. There are many things in the Bible which cannot be easily understood at face value, but which have a spiritual application.

Blessings!

[Eddy]

Okay, first let's get this out so there is no confusion. There is spiritual adultery, and the other lets call "mental adultery".

Let me see. If I'm a married woman and I spend a long time on the phone with a man other than my husband, I commit spiritual adultery. But it's possible to lust for another women, in a homo sense. So, I commit spiritual adultery if I talk on the phone to a woman for a long time. What about spending a long time with people (men and women) in a forum? I suppose it could be labeled as committing spiritual adultery too. Rats!!! I have been spending more than ten minutes... a day!!! I'm glad my hubby is not looking for a way to get rid of me, or I'd be done!

Is this ?

I don't think that talking on the phone for a long time equals lust or mental adultery or any of the above. Is this what made Danny think he could accuse his wife of mental adultery?

Actually it does matter; it is the crux of the issue. Because of the church's teaching on divorce and remarriage in order to marry Brandy without stepping out of the bounds laid by the church's position he had to show Linda was adulterous. He could not prove a physical adulterous relationship... but with Linda effectively gagged, he has been able to cast enough aspersion for folk to believe her guilty... belief that continues to be entrenched, as one can see... but it begs the question... if the charge he makes is shown to be fraudulent what of his subsequent marriage to Brandy? I am speaking from the perspective of the church; as far as the state is concerned he needed no reason at all to divorce Linda... but the standard of the church is markedly higher...and it is the attempting to give the appearance of having met that standard which has brought this discussion to where it is... the issues with the continued bearing of false witness not withstanding.

In His service,
Mr. J

Wow, that's pretty messed up . Because unless she confessed, he cannot prove at all that she commited mental adultery. But that does bring up a question. Should mental adultery be a legit reason for divorce?

Personally I do not think so, but I'm one of those people who are in it through thickest to thinest. I don't even think adultery is a good enough reason for divorce, unless is a continuous thing. BTJM

Whew! Eddy, you have a way of deflating one's ego. I just wrote a lenghty post explaining, with Bible texts, what "spiritual adultery" is and is not. And then you come on here and write a "reply" demonstrating that you haven't understood a word I wrote.

Sorry about that. You just don't hear much about the literal spiritual adultery.

[princessdi]

Okay, first let's get this out so there is no confusion. There is spiritual adultery, and the other lets call "mental adultery".

Right! spiritual adultery is against God, not man{general}. Mental is that of which the Bible speaks about lusting after a woman in your heart, but as you said, no one can know that unless you tell them.

I don't think that talking on the phone for a long time equals lust or mental adultery or any of the above. Is this what made Danny think he could accuse his wife of mental adultery? :huh

Now you got it, Girlie! However he then called it "spiritual adultery". That would not wash, and he has since distanced himself from that phrase. Yes, he actually called it that because she was on the phone more than 15 mins. with a man who was not her husband.......he left out the part about it being a Dr. who was treating Linda's son, Danny's stepson, for drug abuse. We didn 't find that out until later. Danny acted as if he had no idea why she was on the phone with a man that long.

[Eddy]

Now you got it, Girlie!

Yeah, I'm learning. You know I'm new to all this.

This post has been edited by Eddy: Dec 28 2006, 11:39 AM

[inga]

"Green Cocha,"

Thanks for the detailed reply. I really appreciate it. It clarifies a lot of things.

Now, the link to the essay you included opens a whole 'nother can of worms! For the Bible teaches that the fire of hell is eternal--but now you will really think I'm strange! Best we leave that for another thread.

Thanks for taking a look at least. I agree that the fire of hell is as eternal as that which burned up Sodom and Gomorrah. (See Jude 7) Any other eternal fire would present the problem of an uninhabitable earth (because of the eternal fire) or a separate place in God's universe in which sinners are eternally tortured, as taught by those who do not understand that God only has inherent immortality. But you're right, if this is discussed, it should be in another thread.

Now, I'm not sure why you have taken issue with my saying the word "spiritual" can have more than one usage. You have, yourself, dredged up multiple meanings for the word.

I did not take issue with the concept of multiple meanings, but with the particular meaning implied in "spiritual adultery." It goes contrary to the accepted usage of the word spiritual.

As for the multiple meanings I posted, it didn't require much "dredging." Copying the dictionary definitions from www.dictionary.com is all it took. Dictionaries are rather useful for purposes of determining accepted usage of language.

I agree that there is nothing "righteous" about lustful thoughts, but it is still very much an issue affecting one's spirituality. I've heard the term "spiritual suicide" more than once, and I think it simply means to divorce oneself from God, the Source of life, through one's choices and actions. So, I am looking at "spiritual adultery" in a similar light.

Agreed on the issue of "spiritual suicide." It perfectly fits the accepted usage of the term. But could your justification for "spiritual adultery" mean that physical adultery does not affect one's spirituality? (A rhetorical question, since I don't think you mean that.)

Jesus said spiritual things are spiritually discerned, which points to a realm of understanding beyond the physical realm so common to us. Yes, you can say that it means the Holy Spirit will enlighten the understanding. However, I think it means more than just that. There are many things in the Bible which cannot be easily understood at face value, but which have a spiritual application.

Agreed. I just don't believe that mental adultery is more "spiritual" than physical adultery. (I'm not saying you do, by the way -- just that the terminology implies that.)

Once again: Biblically speaking, spiritual adultery is unfaithfulness to God, and that usage harmonizes with the dictionary meaning of "spiritual."

Calling the other "mental adultery" gets us on the same page. Only God knows whether anyone committed mental adultery, unless there's concret evidence such as a record of sexually explicit exchanges -- either in written or audio format. Of course, I understand Danny & cohorts have claimed that such evidence exists. However, with all the other trashing of Linda that they have done, the fact that they haven't come forth with any credible evidence is a pretty good argument in favor of there being no such evidence.

Blessings,
Inga

[Green Cochoa]

Inga, regarding the eternal fire of hell, I would encourage you to read the following verses, in this order:

Isaiah 33:14-16
Psalm 15
Deuteronomy 4:24
Isaiah 43:2
Daniel 3:25
Revelation 3:18
Jude 7

And then tell me with what you could logically replace the term "eternal fire" in that last verse.
(The first two texts you will want to compare and contrast together carefully.)

...
Once again: Biblically speaking, spiritual adultery is unfaithfulness to God, and that usage harmonizes with the dictionary meaning of "spiritual."
...

Just one comment here:

Is the term "spiritual adultery" biblical now? I don't think it's in the Bible! If Jesus said that by lusting we commit adultery, I ask you, why not use the term "spiritual" adultery here? For in the "spiritual" sense it is adultery.

I know, I know. "Spiritual adultery" has always been thought of as unfaithfulness to God. But, wait a minute....are you trying to tell me that having lustful thoughts is still being faithful to God?

Yes, there are four major realms for us:
Spiritual
Mental
Physical
Emotional

To which of these does "sin" have a direct relationship? I think it's the "spiritual" realm. This is why I have said earlier, and I still feel, that the term "spiritual adultery" can have more than one application, if not meaning.

Blessings!

[inga]

Is the term "spiritual adultery" biblical now? I don't think it's in the Bible! If Jesus said that by lusting we commit adultery, I ask you, why not use the term "spiritual" adultery here? For in the "spiritual" sense it is adultery.

I know, I know. "Spiritual adultery" has always been thought of as unfaithfulness to God. But, wait a minute....are you trying to tell me that having lustful thoughts is still being faithful to God?

Green Cocha, in the Bible the concept of spiritual adultery is applied to unfaithfulness to God in a major way such as giving active allegiance to another god. Terms such as going "awhoring" after other gods support the use of the terminology.

All sin, is, of course "unfaithfulness to God," and if you broaden the term that far, it does cover mentail adultery while it covers all sins. It also becomes meaningless. For instance, would Danny have gotten the same mileage out of saying that Linda sinned and that he was therefore justified in divorcing her?

No, he got mileage out of the terminology because folks imagined Linda having an adulterous relationship with someone else, even if it wasn't physical.

Kay Kuzma actually comes close to using the term biblically when she defines spiritual adultery as putting something or someone else in the place of God in one's life. There's just a bit of a problem:
1. How does Kay presume to know what was going on in Linda's heart?
2. How does she know that Linda didn't commit "spiritual adultery" with Danny?
(By the working definition Kay used, many married folks commit "spiritual adultery" with their own spouses because they put their spouses in the place of God. So spiritual adultery as grounds for divorce becomes nonsensical because spouses would have cause to divorce each other for loving each other too much.)

The bottom line still is that no one can know when another commits spiritual adultery. And even if it could be known, it does not constitute grounds for divorce.

This post has been edited by inga: Dec 29 2006, 02:01 AM

[Grace]

Green Cocha, in the Bible the concept of spiritual adultery is applied to unfaithfulness to God in a major way such as giving active allegiance to another god. Terms such as going "awhoring" after other gods support the use of the terminology.

All sin, is, of course "unfaithfulness to God," and if you broaden the term that far, it does cover mentail adultery while it covers all sins. It also becomes meaningless. For instance, would Danny have gotten the same mileage out of saying that Linda sinned and that he was therefore justified in divorcing her?

No, he got mileage out of the terminology because folks imagined Linda having an adulterous relationship with someone else, even if it wasn't physical.

Kay Kuzma actually comes close to using the term biblically when she defines spiritual adultery as putting something or someone else in the place of God in one's life. There's just a bit of a problem:
1. How does Kay presume to know what was going on in Linda's heart?
2. How does she know that Linda didn't commit "spiritual adultery" with Danny?
(By the working definition Kay used, many married folks commit "spiritual adultery" with their own spouses because they put their spouses in the place of God. So spiritual adultery as grounds for divorce becomes nonsensical because spouses would have cause to divorce each other for loving each other too much.)

The bottom line still is that no one can know when another commits spiritual adultery. And even if it could be known, it does not constitute grounds for divorce.

100% clear!

[HUGGINS130]

Green Cocha, in the Bible the concept of spiritual adultery is applied to unfaithfulness to God in a major way such as giving active allegiance to another god. Terms such as going "awhoring" after other gods support the use of the terminology.

All sin, is, of course "unfaithfulness to God," and if you broaden the term that far, it does cover mentail adultery while it covers all sins. It also becomes meaningless. For instance, would Danny have gotten the same mileage out of saying that Linda sinned and that he was therefore justified in divorcing her?

No, he got mileage out of the terminology because folks imagined Linda having an adulterous relationship with someone else, even if it wasn't physical.

Kay Kuzma actually comes close to using the term biblically when she defines spiritual adultery as putting something or someone else in the place of God in one's life. There's just a bit of a problem:
1. How does Kay presume to know what was going on in Linda's heart?
2. How does she know that Linda didn't commit "spiritual adultery" with Danny?
(By the working definition Kay used, many married folks commit "spiritual adultery" with their own spouses because they put their spouses in the place of God. So spiritual adultery as grounds for divorce becomes nonsensical because spouses would have cause to divorce each other for loving each other too much.)

The bottom line still is that no one can know when another commits spiritual adultery. And even if it could be known, it does not constitute grounds for divorce.

true...no one has grounds for divorce with spiritual adultery...you talking about adultery and divorce somebody better had been stepping out...cause the bible don't talk about any spiritual adultery and human divorce...btjm...

[inga]

When we limit ourselves to the facts of the matter, as opposed to speculation, it would probably be a good idea to remember who are the first-hand actual witnesses.

Linda, is of course, a first-hand witness, but she may have reasons to see things differently from Danny.
Dr. Abrahamsen is a first-hand witness, but Danny has implicated him as being involved.
Johann Thorvaldssen is a first-hand witness, and Danny has not been able to come up with any evidence to support his accusations of Pastor Thorvaldssen, who was the European liaison for 3ABN.

The testimonies of all three persons above agree in the essential details.

Danny Shelton is not a first-hand witness of the serious allegations against Linda. He wasn't there. He has said he has "evidence" but hasn't been able to produce it. Considering all the things he has said about Linda thus far, it's a safe bet that his inability to present credible evidence demonstrates that there isn't any.

[Panama_Pete]

Considering all the things he has said about Linda thus far, it's a safe bet that his inability to present credible evidence demonstrates that there isn't any.

I was reading this letter posted at save3abn.com

http://www.save3abn.com/danny-shelton-demi...-marriage-1.htm

-------- Original Message --------
From: Danny Shelton
To: Johann Thorvaldsson
Subject:
Date: Sunday, August 08, 2004 9:20 AM

"They all told her that spiritual adultery virtually always turns into physical adultery. They told her that eventually these "innocent" conversations with this other man would end up in meeting together physically. Because before very long these long conversations would not be enough to fill her emotional needs. The next step would be to meet together which virtually always takes this problem from spiritual adultery to physical."

---------------------------------------

Then I read this:

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/8207.htm

John Sandford says in his quite brilliant book 'Why Some Christians Commit Adultery' (Tulsa, OK: Victory House, 1989), 'the first and greatest cause of _sexual_ adultery, among well-meaning Christians, is _spiritual_ adultery [which happens when] married persons share with someone else what ought to have been shared first or only with their own spouses' (p.7).

The classical wisdom here:

1. Spiritual adultery is always (at first) unintentional.

2. When persisted in, it leads inevitably to full physical adultery.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Shelton's information on spiritual adultery seems to originate with a book by John Sandford. So, I looked at John Sandford, the author

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cultlink.com/sentinel/sandford.html

Some of John Sandford’s exhortations given under supposed divine revelation serve his own agenda and his own vision of Christian unity between Protestants and Catholics. Sandford treats anyone standing in the way of such unbiblical unity as the enemy and uses his assumed position as a prophet to spiritually threaten the Bereans who question his ecumenical bent..

"That’s where we have been, as we discovered Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Roman Catholics and so many other Christians of every denomination all being filled with the Spirit, rattling our theologies together, joining ourselves to one another with a lot of noise.

He got one thing right! When sound theology is mixed with false theology one has to "rattle" them to do so."

http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/elijahhouse.html

Elijah House was founded in 1974 by John and Paula Sandford, who are avid proponents of inner healing prayer. For more than two decades, Elijah House has published a collection of books by the Sandfords that advocate many of the same concepts Ed Smith teaches in his Theophostic Prayer Ministry training materials.

John Sandford has referred to himself as a "super-spook mystic always having dreams, seeing visions, and having far-out experiences" (Healing the Wounded Spirit, p. 255). One of those experiences included healing the traumatic memory of a cow that had been shocked by lightning — a story Sandford relates in A Comprehensive Guide to Deliverance and Inner Healing (p. 231-232). He says: "Memories need to be healed in animals as well as in people. Demons must be cast away, but not without removing their access by healing the memories" (p. 235). This idea that hurtful memories provide access to demonic inhabitation, which Smith applies to Christians, and not animals, was heavily promoted in Smith’s writings over the years.

The Sandfords are self-admitted disciples of Agnes Sanford (no relation), who is considered the mother of the healing-of-the-memories movement. John Sandford opens his classic work on inner healing — The Transformation of the Inner Man — with the story of Sanford, whom he met in 1961. He says, "I knew by my psychological training that Agnes was praying for the inner boy [his inner child] from conception to thirteen whom I could not reach. It worked. I was healed" (p. 4). He then goes on to describe a dream about Sanford, which he said God showed him was all about "turning on lights in [Sandford’s] ‘tower of knowledge’" (pp. 4-5).

DesVoignes says: "Sandford teaches that as part of transformation, the counselor must take a person through visualization, back into their childhood, even back into the womb, to contact their inner child, find out what the problem was at that time, speak to it , and this will allow changes to be made in the present life."

-------------------------------------------

[Panama_Pete]

Note: these two letters are what I recall of the "Spiritual Adultery" episode. Emphasis is mine.

Personally, I wonder what Sigmund Freud would say about Kay's concept of the Spiritual Hole? Freud would have a field day with that one!
--------------------------

Dear Stan:

God has put a spiritual "hole" in each of our hearts that can be filled by Him. When it is, we will be so bonded that we will give up family, career, everything for Him. God has given us marriage to understand how two people can become one--so we can better understand the trinity, but the spiritual "hole" shouldn't be filled with a human.
Unfortunately, if the hole is filled with another person, problems are created--especially if the person is not one's spouse! That's why we have so many pastors leaving the church--they have allowed their spiritual hole to be filled with another person whom they are helping spiritually. Too much Bible study and spiritual counseling with persons of the opposite sex can lead to emotional dependence and the person is willing to give up everything for this person. This is basically what Spiritual Adultery is. No, there does not have to be physical contact. However, in most cases it leads to that because as a man spends time meeting a woman's emotional needs, he unconsciously feels there should be a sexual payoff. And when a woman's emotional needs are met, she is more open to a sexual relationship.
Here's a book I think may be helpful. Spiritual Adultery by Charles H. Dove. You can get it through Amazon.com

Sincerely,

Kay


Kay Kuzma's Correction


"To: Stan McCluskey

Stan,

I had heard there was a book on spiritual adultery. I mistakenly went up on Amazon.com and found the one by Dove--thinking that was the one that had been recommended to me. I made a mistake. The Christian book on spiritual adultery is really called, Why Some Christians Commit Adultery, by John Loren Sandford . Again, I have not read the book. I have no idea who Dove is...never read a word from him...and like you, I never want to! I'm sure glad you're the only person I've mentioned that book to!!!! Innocent mistakes can too easily become mountains!

Kay


I reminded her that permission had been given to add her note to this Forum.

---------------------------