Being a Swinger, do you Still believe in GOD

[davephx]

There is no conflict between BIBLICAL Christiantiy and swinging. The only conflict is with traditions that have no biblica basis.

In biblical times it was prefectly fine for a married man to have as many wives, concubines and "common" prostitutes as he could afford. Adultery was only wrong for a married women since it violated the husbands ownership of his wife. But a married man could have as many sex partners as he wished as long as they were single (not owned by another man). Adultery was a property crime not a sex crime.

The only exception was of the elders of the Churchs of Timothy and Titus could only have one wife. We don't know why but it may have been there were lots of Gentiles in those Church's that were uncomfortable with the Hebrew way of many wives and concubines.

We have zillions of ministers that agree and have a huge biblical section at www.libchrist.com and extensve bibliography.

I use to be as consevative Christian as you could be. I was active in Bible STudy Fellowship, Christian Business Men's Comittee, elder in a conservative Church. More than 20 years ago I set out to prove my conservative traditional beliefs correct vs some more liberal views. But with years of study I had to admit that I had been lied to about sexual isssues by the Church traditions that I found by extensive reserach and prayer simply had no biblical basis.

We continue to have over 2000 folks a day visit www.libchrist.com with no sexy pictures just a lot of information that has been helpful for so many swingers and others around the world since 1998.

Dave in Phoenix
Liberated Christians
Swing and Polyamory Resource Center
http://www.libchrist.com

[turbine1999]

I my self do beleive that there is a GOD. I was raised as a catholic and went to catholic school all 12 years.

I know this may sem heavy but I look at it this way. GOD has allowed all of us to do what we want and when we want to do it.

Swinging to us is not for sex but for the fun and the friendship. Since we have been swinging for over 10 years our realationship has grown strong. As we tell new couples that we come in contact with, we always say that sex is fun, but love is us. We both love each other very much and no mater what we do with swinging we both know that we will always be with each other, and that is what we think GOD enjoys.

[Vjklander]

I dumped the god myth a looooooooong time ago. I will tolerate anyone's decision to believe, as long as they tolerate my decision not to. That said, anyone who gets in my face about religion is fair game for my best less-than-tactful diatribe.
J

[turbine1999]

I fully agree, dont get me wrong I may beleive but I dont prech.



Turbo

[velbuzz]

Aren't these the things not to bring up at a cocktail party for fear of disrupting the pleasant time.

Yet I am again impressed with the thoughtfulness and tolerance that is exhibited by my fellow Swing Life members.

I challege anyone to find a post on this thread that is not mean and to topic. Goes to show we swingers may have indeed learned the lessons regarding how to treat one another.

'nuff said

velbuzz

ps I believe there is a force out there call it God if you will and I believe in the teachings of Christ

[SluttyWife]

We're Agnostic which means we are unsure if there is a God and
if there we're not sure which way to turn to as there would be no real way as we see it, to detrmine who he or she might be.

I have an alternative and that is believing in love.
Sounds like something to believe in and
something every major religion in the world has some
sort of teaching on.

So swinging could be a way to that.
It certainly forces you to deal with issues
that would not otherwise surface.



Slutty Wife

[J5T]

If you are a Christian, then adultery is a sin according to christian beleif - 'Thou shall not commit adultery.' Webster's defines adultery as ' voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman not his wife (and vice versa). Although I myself do not beleive swinging is sinful - it does fit the definition of adultery - thus, I suppose, it should be considered a sin in the christian sense. One can argue all year that consensual sex between married people does not constitute adultery - but in fact, by definition, swinging is adultery. It seems like most Cristian swingers convince themselves that it is not - that the 'Thou shall not commit adultery' commandment is intended for someone else and they are exempt. Like I said, I don't think swinging is sinful at all - I beleive it's a healthy outlet for all our natural, biological desires and has nothing to do with religion. I simply find it funny, if not hypocritical, for people to thump their bibles then turn around and break a commandment. But then again, there are 'hard-core' christians, 'middle of the road' christians, and 'I'm barely a chrsitian' christians - and the relgion is interpreted a billion ways. It's dilemmas such as these that helped me to conclude that religion is man-made, God may exist but he sure as hell doesn't answer prayers, and the scriptures are an excellent and moral outline on how to live a good life. Personally, I find it sort of despairing that so many people blindly follow this faith - and the extent at which they worship - it's downright brainwashing! But, each to their own. Like Vjklander said 'I have no problem with somebody being religous, just as long as they have no problem with me NOT being religious.'

[davephx]

This is the typical problem with today's Christians. Take a modern definition of adultery and apply it to biblical times.

See my earlier message. In biblical times adultery was ONLY wrong for a married women, NEVER a married man as long as the other women was single.

Men had many wives, concubines, "common" prostitutes and it was NEVER wrong.

What relevance is the fact that 2000 years later we have a different definition of adultery? Webster didn't live in biblical times.

Examples of Polyamory (actually polygamy), adultery and fornication in the Bible.

Today in our cultural equal polyamory relationships are even more in line with Christ's teaching of love than biblical cultural where male dominated polygamy was the norm.

Abraham had two wives; Isaac only one; Jacob had four; David "had his hundreds" and Solomon had "his thousands."

A man could marry (literally to "become the master of the woman") as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.

Genesis 16: Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar. Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command.

What could be clearer than the Song of Songs, celebrating Solomon's love for a new woman? Verse 6:8 tells us that at the time Solomon was celebrating love with this woman, he had 60 wives and 80 concubines and "young women past counting." Concubines were often for breeding and the other young women, too numerous to count, were also available for his sexual pleasure. Eventually Solomon ended up with 700 wives, 300 mistresses and never a word was spoken that their was anything wrong with having sex with all these women.

In OT times concubinage was an official status. God rebuked Solomon not for polygyny and the concubines, but for the fact that many of his wives were non-Hebrew and these foreign wives brought idols in for worship from their pagan cultures, which was contrary to God's teaching.

Esther 2:17 "And the king loved Esther above all the women (concubines), and she obtained grace and favour in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown upon her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti. (his disobedient wife)

David
One of the greatest figures of the bible, King David, not only had a multitude of wives but many concubines as well. And he was considered PERFECT in "all" things by God. Not some, or most, but ALL. His many sexual partners was not what was meant by adultery back then.

1Ki 11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.

What is interesting is that David was "perfect" yet he did commit adultery with Bathsheba but only because Bathsheba was married. She was not one of his own women. The other 7 wives and 17 concubines that David was sleeping with were given to him by God as a blessing!

It keeps amazing me how people can claim adultery or sex with singles is biblically wrong. Clearly adultery only applied to married women and never to a married man with a single women. It was a property issue -the man owned his wives and their sexual rights. Women had no such sexual rights over their husbands. Today women simply have the same right of sexual enjoyment and options that men have always had. This is certainly in line with Christ's teaching that the only "rule" is the rule of love. Today polyamory relations are based on love and equality between men and women - clearly Christ would very much approve.

God seems to have been quite pleased with what some Christians would consider adultery. But they have no basis for attacking polyamory or swinging (responsible, consensual non-monogamy). The bible never suggested it was wrong for a man to have many wives and fornicate with concubines. It was only wrong for a married woman since her husband owned her sexuality. Again today's polyamory equal, no ownership relationships are based on love which is what Christ taught.

Indeed, both Judaism and Christianity were originally much more tolerant about matters sexual than they are today. That changed dramatically when St. Augustine, after years of personal lewdness and licentiousness, declared that "Nothing is so much to be shunned as sex relations." He certainly did not preach what he practiced!

Then Judaism became much more puritanical about 800 years ago when monogamy was instituted in order not to offend or scandalize the Christian communities in which Jews then lived.

The late Rabbi Abraham Feinberg wrote a book about 20 years ago, "Sex and the Pulpit," in which he argues that The Church - meaning "organized religion" - controls sex, and by controlling sex controls us. How true!

This control becomes a form of slavery to dogma and is what Bob Marley was referring to when he coined one of his famous lines, "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery..."

[wrnakedru]

I do not consider myself to be religious.

Like most others, I have noticed hypocrites along life's path - IN churches, and away.

I do believe I have a strong and firmly held spiritual relationship with my God in the manner of coming to Him as does a child to a Father.

I believe God has more knowledge than I do. I believe prayers are answered. Sometimes God says 'No'.

I am not a Christian because I am perfect.

I am a Christian because I am a sinner.

The burden of, and price for, my sins was paid in my behalf over 2000 years ago. I may be unworthy of that act, but it is what saves me nevertheless.

I do not believe all should believe as I do. That is their choice. This is mine.

[J5T]

You make some excellent points Dave! Sounds like you have investigated this issue quite a bit. The biblical quotes you provided are quite effective in conveying the fact that, in biblical times, married men were allowed to have sex with single women (but a married woman could not have sex with anyone but her husband - and if she did it was sinful). Then St. Augustine screwed it all up and the church brought the hammer down on any extra-maritial affairs. Now we live in 2004 - with all the 'new rules' that the church conjured up out of midair - and according to them, now, it is a sin to have any extra-maritial affair. It would have been great to live back in Solomons days - but alas, Big Brother is watching. Quite honestly, God should have nothing to do with a man or a womans sexual relationships - and neither should the church. But, mankind - being the organized control freaks that they are - created monogamy and forced it upon the masses and here we are sneaking around trying to live our swinger lifestyles in the modern era without anyone outside the loop finding out - why? Because it is frowned upon - it is considered a sin by most christians. Since we live now, in the 21st century, and Webster still is not alive but long dead, and all the old adultery rules have been upgraded to new adultery rules, applying today's definition of adultery to the topic of swinging is absolutely relevant. I suppose a christian, if they feel so inclined, can choose as they will as to which doctrine to beleive and follow - the ancient doctrine (adultery by married men with single women - good) or the modern doctrine (adultery by anyone - bad). I suppose we all must develop our own micro-religions - a religion that best fits our own philosophies and lives. The levels of difference within a common religion create misunderstandings between numerous issues - but there are two sides to every issue - those for it and those against it - and when it comes to swinging - the "those against it' crowd highly outnumber the 'those for it' crowd. As time goes on, I beleive that we (church included) will once again be free to express ourselves sexually without condemnation - but until then we must fight the good fight. Like the lyrics of Dylan, 'Time's they are a changin.'

[davephx]

J5T said
applying today's definition of adultery to the topic of swinging is absolutely relevant. I suppose a christian, if they feel so inclined, can choose as they will as to which doctrine to beleive and follow - the ancient doctrine (adultery by married men with single women - good) or the modern doctrine (adultery by anyone - bad).

To me this seems totaly unChristian, to make up new laws based on Mans ideas that has no biblical basis. Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ and traditions of his time. There is no "modern doctrine" other than lies of twisting what is biblical.

True Christianity doesn't change based on new doctrine, other than if certain things were totally cultural. Jesus taught that a Christian has the freedom in Christ to be free from the legalism of Hebrew times in various areas. But there is no new modern doctrine that is valid in my view that is more restrictive than in biblical times. Modern doctrine is nothing but lies of translations of ancient doctrine in my view. Christ's teachings on which Christianity is based does not change. And Christ never said a word about any sexual restrictions.
As a serious biblical Christian it is clear there is absolutely nothing biblically wrong with swinging, polyamory or being as God created people to be, homosexual, bi or heterosexual. The false lies of traditions that have no biblical basis are the abomination based again on lies. Many Christians follow what the bible actually said as understood in the culture in which it was written vs the lies of traditions, even admitted by the NIV committee as an example. The issue in bible translation is traditions vs "dynamic equivalency" . Are the lies of traditions more important than what the bible actually said in the original language and context is the issue. Many ministers and theologians are on the side of biblical facts instead of the lies of traditions regarding sexual issues.

We gave a huge biblical section that looks more seriously at these issues and every sex related passage that is lied by sex negative traditions at
http://www.libchrist.com/bible/contents.html

Also see my background as I use to be very traditional conservative until I took my Christianity and the bible more seriously. See
http://www.libchrist.com/background/founders.html

And just a small sample of the zillions of ministers and theologians that write in support of biblical honestly at
http://www.libchrist.com/christiansin/contents.html

And a sample bibliography at http://www.libchrist.com/bible/books.html

How Sex Was Made A Sin

A huge number of other Christians who now are enjoying more open relationships, more living in Christ's love. But many have struggled with exactly the same issues that many who visit our site are concerned about. Centuries of indoctrination by traditional Christian teachings are hard to overcome. But the sex negative traditions clearly have no biblical basis.

Jews (the group out of which Jesus preached) do not have the same sexual hang ups that today's traditional Christians (vs Biblical) have. They view sex in a much more wholesome way than most Christians. Christians borrow their negative view of sex from the Greeks and also from St. Augustine who over-reacted to his previous sexual progligacy with his ascetic responses that mad sex totally evil even when it was used in marriage for sexual reasons. It was only valid if it was for the purpose of procreation. Now, if that is the only use you make of sex then you are in sympathy with St. Augustine. That is a sorry place to put your loyalty.

Regarding Christ, I believe that his silence indicates a wholesome acceptance of Jewish openness about the subject. Christians(?) are too often in tune with negativism and not open to honesty about their own sexuality and, as a result, so many of them end up in deviancy. Sex is not a disease. It is a gift from God. That does not mean that we use it carelessly. Many traditional Christians have a lot to work out on a psychological level sexual issues, before they can engage in dialogue with honest, searching Christians eager to find solutions to the errors created by organized religious fanatics.

The Emperor Constantine (354-430 A.D.) was perhaps the world's most important convert to the new religion of Christianity. Christianity was perhaps the only thing left to try to hold the Roman Empire together. While the political empire fell in the next century, the Church stepped in as the new central authority. Threats of burning in hell were even more effective than the army for controlling large and diverse populations.

Augustine was a primary theological shaper of thought and went so far as to argue that sex was sinful even within wedlock unless the specific purpose was always conception! This reflects the need at the time for many more children. Infant mortality was very high and the economic and political structures were based on families. Likewise, clerical celibacy was in part shaped by fear that offspring would fight over Church property.

Thanks to widespread illiteracy - or apathy -whatever the Church said was now law. Intercourse was no longer natural and good; sex was dirty and only for procreation. Celibacy was the new standard for the clergy. And it was a great money maker! If you sinned by enjoying sex, you must come to the Church for repentance, which required a donation to demonstrate your faith. What a perfect way for the Church to raise capital; make everyone a sinner because of their innate sexual desires and then offer to absolve them for a sizeable donation.

The sexual morality of Christianity did not come from Jesus. It instead came from later Christians whose main interest was the control of the masses. It is important to recognize the source of religious dogma about sex - when and where it came from - and put it in perspective in present time and circumstances.

Making polygamy a "sin" was a slow process. It was even common for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses. Pope Gregory II in a decretal in 726 said "when a man has a sick wife who cannot discharge the marital function, he may take a second one, provided he looks after the first one." Later, with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance, Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree that offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could not inherit anyway).

In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality (multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times), but it was about MONEY!

Polygyny (many wives for 1 man) was the norm due to the male-dominated society and the fact a man's status was determined by the number of children he fathered. Today, women should enjoy equal rights and sex can be for pleasure and an expression of sincere love. This makes polyamory a more equal and loving lovestyle.

For much more detailed historic information on how sex became a sin see:
http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/mon...no-history.htm in addition to the overall site, http://www.patriarchywebsite.com which has a great deal of historical sexual information especially related to Jews.

The Liberated Christian Sexual Ethic
We affirm that our sexuality is a natural gift from God. It should not be artificially restricted by regulation. God honors a free sexual expression that seeks the enjoyment and good of the each person, and the glory to God as He participates with us in this glorious aspect of living and loving others, ourselves and God. In our scriptural understanding, a New Testament biblical argument cannot be made against most cases of consensual sexual pleasure sharing, whether premarital, marital, or postmarital.

Negative cases can be made only if the parties involved are not functioning within Christian love guidelines, but are rather using one another for their own selfish gratification or are doing harm, physical or psychological, to their sexual partners or to other parties who are involved. Among the sexual practices which would be harmful would be the careless disregard for sexually transmitted diseases or contraceptive protection.

[J5T]

Excellent. You make the best arguement I've heard by far regarding Swinging vs. Sinning. I absolutely agree with you - although I am not well educated on the history behind how sex became sinful. I knew the basic history. I will look up those sites you posted and check them out. More people should do so.
I agree, it is totally unchristian to make up new laws based on mans perceptions rather than based on proper biblical influence. But the fact remains - man did do it - and a lot of people are snowballed over it. My favorite - the Sabbath Day. Man has made the Sabbath Day Sunday - but in biblical reality the Sabbath Day is Saturday. Absolutely amazing that such a thing can be allowed! I can accept that there are a lot of ministers and theologians that follow biblical fact - but of the small circle of people I have come to know, they simply do not dwell that hard on the fallacies of modern bible preaching - they beleive that if the preacher says it, it must be true - no second thoughts. I have always had a huge problem with faith - it has such a weak basis - no tangible expression - without the bible then what is christianity? Without the Koran what is Islam? Etc Etc. Books are written by men, men lie, men like money and fame, men are stupid - would God really entrust man to relay his words properly?! How could he? - He knows how easily turned a man's objectives become - how man can conjure up dreams and ideas at whim and present them as fact. I beleive in God - but I do not beleive in scriptures. Thus, in my world, sex has nothing to do with religion - be it biblical times or modern. However, for millions of christians - it weighs heavy - and that my friend is a damn shame. A lot of people do have to work out their sexual issues on some psychological level, but will they? Or will they take the easy road and follow modern doctrine. This is what makes me mad. I wish people were not so apathetic and ignorant. Sure there are a lot of smart people but there are too many that do not take advantage of it. I'm not an expert, but it doesn't take an expert to figure out that swinging is not a sin. It doesn't take an expert to figure out that if you eat swine you will not burn in hell. Or if your born in Africa to non-christian parents and you die directly after birth without ever being exposed to christian ritual - that you won't burn in hell. Christians have some messed up idealogy - they are so pompous and one-track - although I beleive that trend is changing. I would like to travel 100 or so years into the future and see the way religion will be viewed then.
Good points Dave, I've gained a new perspective on the issue. I'll check out those sites.

[2New2it]

I can't look at the stars, or the flight of a hummingbird, or the beauty of a sunset and believe the universe is a random event. I believe there is order in what some see as khaos. I'm not so arrogant to believe humans are the pinnacle of intelligence, so yes, I believe, but not in the orthodox ways.

My favorite bumper sticker of all time: God and I get along fine, it's his fan clubs I have problems with.

[BradAndJanet]

Originally posted by SluttyWife
We're Agnostic which means we are unsure if there is a God and
if there we're not sure which way to turn to as there would be no real way as we see it, to detrmine who he or she might be.

I have an alternative and that is believing in love.
Sounds like something to believe in and
something every major religion in the world has some
sort of teaching on.
...

Wow, yeah, that about describes it for us too. Of course that doesn't prevent me from sending good thoughts out into the ether, just in case. Ya never know...

We believe that the important thing is for us to help each other out. I'd call that love, yes.

-B

[EternallySingle]

The idea of sex being a sin is based on those two principals, and that is the problem.

Committing adultery comes from the phrase adulterating a mixture, which means to add impurities which weaken it. It also meant to dishonor a contract long before it was applied to marriage. So, to commit adultery is to weaken your marriage contract by a specific behavior, even if that behavior is going out every night drinking with your buddies, shopping for frivolous items that take money away from purchasing food and paying bills, or arguing about frivolous disagreements like what T.V. show to watch or if the dishes have been washed and put away properly.

To covet another's spouse meant wanting to break up another family, even if you didn't act on it, and neglecting your responsibility to your own family in the process. in this way, prostitutes could be seen as being covetous, because they would want the money of a man who needed that money to provide for his family.

Since most swingers neither want to break up another's family, neglect their responsibilities to their families, or dishonor their spiritual contract to be faithful to one another, it is hard to believe that swinging could be a sin.

but thats just what I believe based on what I've learned about those two commandments.