Is swinging morally acceptable?

[singleagain]

Please read the entirety of this post and consider it carefully. There have been many posts of late that dance all around the idea of the morals of swinging. Is it morally ok to swing or is it a sin that will send us to hell? This post is in no way designed to preach to you or to denigrate anyone. Rather, and hopefully, it will generate thoughtful and meaningful dialog that will result in helping us to understand our lifestyle better.

On two consecutive Sundays, March 25 and April 1 of 2007, my pastor preached on the matter of Christian sexuality. As a text he chose 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 and quoted from the New International Version as follows:

"Now then, brothers, you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God, as in fact you are doing. We ask and urge you in the Lord to do so even more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For it is God’s will that you be sanctified: You must abstain from sexual immorality; each of you must know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not with passion and lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; and you must never take advantage of or exploit a brother in this regard. For the Lord is an avenger in all these things, just as we already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to impurity but to holiness. Therefore, whoever rejects this instruction is not rejecting human authority but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

After his message on the 1st, I decided to look into a more in depth view of the Scripture he used. I studied from George Ricker Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament and from several different Greek dictionaries. I reached some conclusions from this study which cast a different light on the subject matter. But before I expound, let me set a few ground rules:

1. All Scripture is given to us by God and is the written word of his plan, will and direction for human life.

2. In order to understand Scripture in its fullest meaning, one must have a personal knowledge of the Author (God) and must read the Scripture, get the meaning of the Scripture and apply the Scripture according to the meaning of it.

3. The real meaning of the of individual words and phrases in Scripture must be determined by the definitions and uses of those words and phrases at the time they were penned.

The phrase “you must abstain from sexual immorality” can be translated “you must abstain from unfaithfulness.” The Greek word πορνεία (porneia) is defined by Strong as harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry:—fornication. But in other dictionaries it is translated “unfaithfulness.”

The word “body” or “vessel” (in the KJV) comes from σκεῦος (skeuos) meaning a vessel, implement, equipment or apparatus (literally or figuratively [specifically a wife as contributing to the usefulness of the husband]):—goods, sail, stuff, vessel.

The word “passion” is the Greek word πάθος (pathos) or in-ordinate lust.

And finally the word lust is the Greek word ἐπιθυμίαs (epithumia)means longing.

With this understanding the passage using these words could easily be read as follows: For it is God’s will that you be sanctified: You must abstain from unfaithfullness; each of you must know how to control his own wife in holiness and honor, not with lustful longing.”

I will leave it to you to determine what this Scripture really means, but I don’t believe it speaks for or against sexual acts of any specific kind. Nor do I believe that it speaks for or against the swinging lifestyle. Rather, I think it simply means that we are to be faithful to God and to each other and make our marriages follow that same pattern. After all, even Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love God and the second is like it; to love others as ourselves.

Following is the outline of the sermon my pastor gave. I think this will give us plenty of discussion fodder.

The obvious observation: We live in a sexually charged culture.

The worldly argument: Things are different in our culture. The Bible isn’t relevant. However, at the time Paul wrote 1 Thess. There was a sexual revolution that surpasses ours (just check out the Roman history of that time for verification)

Summary: Open sexuality was common, tolerated and customary.

The Theology of Sexuality: God created sex (Genesis 2:18-25). God is for sex for two reasons: procreation and pleasure. He did set some boundaries, however.

Now this is where the sermon departed from the subject of sexuality and entered the arena of one’s relationship with God. Therefore I will not continue with the rest of the outline for the subject we need to discuss is not our relationship with Him, but what is permitted by God sexually. In other words, is God for or against swinging? Or…does He even care as long as swinging activities do not cause harm?

singleagain

[BiloxiCouple]

Morally acceptable by an established religion's set of rules?

Morally acceptable by established social norms?

A bible that has been translated so many times the accuracy of the original language has been changed and lost? I am not a scholar, but some things do bother me. Why is it called the King James Bible? Because of his editing? You used Greek translation of words. That wasn't the original language. The list goes on.

Religion and politics. I am done with both.

[Tybee Swing]

First, a brief history: we were both raised Southern Baptist, and we both were devoted and sincerely faithful (this was all long before we'd even met each other). We know and understand where you're coming from.

Through a combination of lifetime experiences, observations, education, and many other factors - we just don't believe in it anymore. At a very core level, we can't believe it. We believe that the Bible is a mix of history with a big dose of storytelling/legend. For example, when ancient man didn't understand where he came from and began to ponder his origin, he made up a myth about a creator who made the man sleep, took a rib out of him, and made a woman out of it. The Bible (we believe) is a large collection of stories, poetry, and a little history. I now believe that it's an amazing collection of humanity and human experience (but not divine). I'm not telling you what we believe to debate it. The reason I'm sharing this is to get to my real point I'm about to make: If the Bible isn't the Word of God (to us), it's not the barometer of our lives, and it has no power or serious influence on us. We just don't care about the Biblical boundaries placed on human sexuality.

Originally Posted by singleagain

Is it morally ok to swing or is it a sin that will send us to hell?
....In other words, is God for or against swinging? Or…does He even care as long as swinging activities do not cause harm?

Because of what we believe, these questions don't have any real meaning for us, and don't concern us. We feel like we're doing nothing wrong.

Morality in swinging: We always have and always will believe that treating ourselves and others with respect, caring and dignity is vitally important in our lives. The Commandments were written a very long time ago by very brilliant individual(s). They still endure as guidelines that seem to permeate most every society's core system. In other words, we feel very comfortable with the morals (values) we abide by as our own, not as teachings we feel we must obey, "or else" (burn in hell, etc.). We don't struggle with swinging and don't struggle with right vs. wrong in our sexual lives. We're peaceful about it.

If we were still the good Baptists we once were, I'm sure we'd be struggling.

I hope this made sense.

[sereneiders]

Originally Posted by singleagain

The worldly argument: Things are different in our culture. The Bible isn’t relevant. However, at the time Paul wrote 1 Thess. There was a sexual revolution that surpasses ours (just check out the Roman history of that time for verification)

Summary: Open sexuality was common, tolerated and customary.

Well, I am not religious, nor versed in the Scriptures, but... a good argumented discussions is stronger than me, so, for the sake of it.

When you said "open sexuality was common, tolerated and customary", I'd like to say... for the males, and not so for the females. Perhaps this is a subtle distinction to make, with several side effects.

For example, the few bird control measures in existence by then were pretty weak, compared with the ones we have today. The sexuality is "open" when the consecuences doesn't mean a bond for the rest of your life. For a woman, to get pregnant and have a child, the sexuality had strong consecuences, and since matherhood is given for granted, while (by then, and way too often today) fatherhood is an act of faith: along history, males relyed on faith to be able to claim they were their wife's childs fathers. For this act of faith to happen, a male should be willing to do it, something that hardly happens (and even today) if the woman have an "open" sexuality, even if this is just an excuse to relinquish the male's responsibilities.

So, when we talk of "open sexuality" in that context, we're talking about males whose morality, at first sight, wasn't questioned, and... whores. Thus, it seems reasonable to look for a way to make the males aware of their moral responsibility for their "open sexuality".

In this sense, faithfullness for the males doesn't only means to be faithfull to the one they chosen for wife, but also to the ones they chosen for lovers during the excercise of their "open sexuality", because those women would have to rise their born childrens (the "openess" outcome) alone, or to give them up, even as slaves to paid for debts (slavery, for the Jewish culture in that time, was an state regulated and limited "contract", often a way to pay debts or get an income for a family, that could last at most 7 years... this is an historic fact, however I am too lazy to mention the sources). So, I believe those Scriptures, beyond the religious features, fitted a social organizational purpose, one which, ultimatelly, also served the "love each other" commandment, since it would dimish the amount of unloved kids and women.

Now, if we dig in deeper for the female perspective, there existed this hegemonic belief, expressed in the Scritpures, of the woman as a "vessel". My toughts about this departs for the Scriptures: I'd say males witnessed along history how childs born from women bodies, depriving them from a active, notorious participation in the reproductive act (another way to say fatherhood is an act of faith), thus imposing the "explanation model" of the woman as a mere "vessel" where the men's seed (without a woman ovule, a concept no one knew by then) would be feed to grow into a child, would help dimish, and even revert, the value of the supposedly lack of participation. This way, males could claim childs were their personal outcome, inshtead of the outcome as it's perceived when this "vessel" delivers those male's outcome.

I know, I may be stepping outside the proposed frame for this discussion (even when my explanation fits like a glove the specifically a wife as contributing to the usefulness of the husband concept), however, the "vessel" belief was the one both men and woman had, woman looked at themselves as such a "vessel" whose function was, some day, to be able to deliver the male's outcome. Thuis, faithfullness here aquires an extra value, because once the vessel was already "used", the chances for another male to produce the act of faith of believing she's the mother of his child were really dimished. Once "used", she wouldn't be a wife but a whore forever, and since women purpose in this world is to be the vessel for the male outcome, they reqruired to be recognized as "just one male's vessel". In this context, adultery imposed the risk of losing this role for the women, which was a pretty uncaring and unloving attitude for them, the opposite to the commitment of loving each other.

Now, it calls my attention that the Sriptures weren't specific about the meaning of the terms used. In the historyc context where they were produced it seems obvious to me, because of the social ogranizational value and how they make everithing in such a context fit the commitments. By then, for sure, swinging would have been opposed to this meaning.

However, even as our culture evolved and changed, the very same Scriptures meaning seems to be able to fit the changes and the evolution.

Our current sexuality "openess" is way more fair for both genders: Females aquired the right to choose the consecuences for their sexuality exercise by means of effective birth control methods, equalizing themselves to the males. Males aquired ways to verify their outcome without needing to rely on the act of fait (even when still most men does rely on it, partly because of the women's right to chose when to get pregnant, and partly because of being respectfull and loving with their own wifes). This entitled us all to redefine the meaning of the faithfullness concept, ans as we, swingers does, pegging it with the concept of love and detacching it from our sexuality in a controlled fashion in order to preserve and enhance the concept of love.

So, it seems to me that, for as long as we're loving spouses, we're able to redefine the meaning of the Scriptures while still fitting the same goals. This seems to be pretty wise from the Author, and even more, the way the Author allows us to remain submitting to His commitments even when our culture keeps evolving and giving us more ways to enjoy the life (the Author's masterpiece) at the fullest, even when these ways could be against the Scripture meanings in the hystorical context.

[JustAskJulie]

Spoo?! This one is for you.

[confunktion]

$5 says Intuition will take a swing at this one, too.

Mr. Funk
Watching and waiting with interest.

[intuition897]

I haven't fully read the other responses because I don't want them to influence mine. I'll just start by saying that I am a Christian, and I feel that our lifestyle choices do not conflict with my faith. In fact, quite the contrary. Was Jesus a swinger? I have no idea, but I think he was probably open to it. Maybe he leaned more toward polyamory which is, in my opinion, a global ideal. Practical? No, not in the world we live in. But in a utopian world, jealousy and self-doubt and possessiveness would not exist. It's pretty plain that Jesus was a out and out shit-disturber. He cared nothing for conventions and man-made laws created out of our ignorance and fear, and out of our impotence. It was Jesus who said that marriage is simply a thing of THIS world...not the next. And once we're born again, our eyes are opened to a bigger truth...which is that this world doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. It's a play. We're all on stage. We're doing our audition, saying our lines, acting our parts. It's the interview. How well we do in this performance, how well we understand what the hell it is we're doing here, determines our destiny in the afterlife. And a large part of that is understanding what true love is, and its perfect expression. Jesus showed exactly that through His sacrifice. To me, Love is the meaning of life. Living one's life in the service of others, out of love.

You must abstain from sexual immorality; each of you must know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not with passion and lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; and you must never take advantage of or exploit a brother in this regard.

Okay, this doesn't apply. I think it needs to be put into historical context. Some cultures of the time (I think...I'm no expert) were sexually immoral, meaning they abused their own bodies and the bodies of others for outside purposes. Money, politics, social networking, etc. It turned sex into something to be manipulated. Like using a gun to hold up a convenience store. The gun wouldn't be dangerous if there wasn't an asshole on the trigger end of it.

This phrase, "each of you must know how to control his own body in holiness and honor" is exemplified by many swinging couples. The 'body' I think the writer is referring to is the new entity that is formed when two people form a bond, enter a pact together. So it's not only the woman/wife, but the couple unit. After all, as Paul said, a man who harms his own wife, harms himself. They're now one. It's why adultery is so horrible; it harms both halves of the couple, and the offender even more...because not only do they have to see the pain they cause their other half, they have to live with the fact that this act has defined them as truly bad people.

Aaaanyway. This next phrase, "and you must never take advantage of or exploit a brother in this regard", is also something that swingers exemplify. Take the reactions on this board, for example, toward posts from cheaters trying to find a sympathetic ear. 'Nuff said.

I feel that certain passages have been picked and chosen to suit ill-conceived concepts and doctrines that have been force fed to us since we first able to start learning our respective languages. The interpretations of these passages are created the way they are due to certain assumptions people make out of ignorance. The love-equals-sex theory for example, and the notion that lack of jealousy indicates a lack of love.

I like to refer to Romans 14. It talks about food, but there is no denying the parallels between our human appetites. Essentially what it says is that people are all different, and what is sin to one, is not for another. The difference lies in their motivation.

Whole books could be written about this shit.

[intuition897]

Originally Posted by confunktion

$5 says Intuition will take a swing at this one, too.

Mr. Funk
Watching and waiting with interest.

Well shit. Am I that predictable?? lol

[JustAskJulie]

Originally Posted by confunktion

$5 says Intuition will take a swing at this one, too.

Mr. Funk
Watching and waiting with interest.

Ok, that was just too good on the timing.

[intuition897]

Originally Posted by JustAskJulie

Ok, that was just too good on the timing.

You ain't kiddin'!

[FunCalifCple]

An attention grabbing topic, we’re an early 50’s cple having been in the ‘Lifestyle’ for the past 20+ years. We are not experts in any religious subjects, but we try and stay informed of current events and news in general as day to day life happens. Just thinking for the moment, I can’t connect with any writing in the “Bible” as direct word from God. There are ancient recollections and writings from the old testament, and new testament gospels from Mark, Luke, etc. earthly humans who wrote various letters about their recollections and received recognition in about year 300AD to be included in the final script and story compilation now called the “Bible”.

[Chicup]

Atheist pokes his head in.....

....wonders why people attempt to find approval in ancient words which have been translated and retranslated to a point where you can't be sure of anything subtle...

....goes back to being a godless and happy person.

[FunCalifCple]

Most Americans believe that the ‘Bible’ was written in English and later translated into various “Other” dialects , (We are not addressing that stupidity problem)

[sereneiders]

Well, as I said, I am not religious, even the question of God existence seems pretty pointless to me, however I understand the importance the subject have for other people, and I can respect the assumptions as to discuss the OPs question in his own terms.

The question is a valid one (at least for the OP, and for many other people curious abot this lifestyle), it was well formulated, and even the OP stablished boundaries for the discussion to remain valid for himself as a resource.. for what matters to him.

It really doesn't care too much the beliefs the rest of us may have, but the OP's beliefs, and how he perceive swinging could affect his life or/and his afterlife (granting him the credit there exist an afterlife for this matter). I am pretty sure he's aware of most of us disbelief, that we're not ruled by religion nor "an ancient book", as to beat on this dead horse.

[FunCalifCple]

Our comment is a reply to a statement made in the original question…

All Scripture is given to us by God and is the written word of his plan, will and direction for human life.