Christian Swingers

[SsHubby 56]

Big Rock said:

The best that can be done is to try to find the interpretation that is the closest to the intent of the original authors. Even the 10 commandments are subject to different interpretations. It states very clearly that Adultery is a sin, but what is adultery? Is adultery ALL sex outside of marriage? Or, there are different definitions of adultery as well as graduations of guilt. I, personally, would forget the whole thing, and go get a beer.

 

Exactly, there is a debate going on in the Christian world right now over a book by a previously widely accept pastor, Rob Bell. He wrote a book that came out that apparently questions the current and time honored interpretations of heaven and hell.

 

Also there is another renewed debate on whether God had a wife and was she edited out of the bible. This debate is brought up by biblical scholar who say they have "evidence" of this.

 

Bottom line, for everyone you can find to say something is wrong, you can find someone to say it's right. I agree with the "forget it" part because you have to internally make peace with yourself on this lifestyle and advice may help or it may just make you more confused.

[WhatisTruth 41]

Big Rock said:

The best that can be done is to try to find the interpretation that is the closest to the intent of the original authors. Even the 10 commandments are subject to different interpretations. It states very clearly that Adultery is a sin, but what is adultery? Is adultery ALL sex outside of marriage? Or, there are different definitions of adultery as well as graduations of guilt. I, personally, would forget the whole thing, and go get a beer.

 

As many people have pointed out since I last posted, there are many different interpretations of different passages in the Bible. There are also many different congregations and denominations because of this, that vary pretty widely. I have done a pretty extensive study on adultery that spanned over the course of about a year, both as an individual and as a bible study class. Adultery is one of those words that was interpreted very poorly due to language issues when the King James Bible was written. But I really don't think this is the place for that super geeky stuff.

 

While I do think its possible to have these discussions while being both honest and sensitive or civil, I apologize for any contribution I may have had in causing this thread to go where it did.

 

Now, it is my birthday, where can these beers be found?

[lotsoffun201 175]

lotsoffun201 said:

Ok.....Here goes.....

 

I (the Mr.) was involved in the lifestyle for many years with my ex. The current Mrs and I met through an online dating site. Actually she is a former worship leader and Christian Pastor with ordination papers. Her parents are also pastors. She taught Sunday school and lived that life for 40+ years. When we met there was NEVER a desire by me to continue with the lifestyle, but she wanted to see what it was about.

 

Now I will tell you that we are a soft couple by choice and while I don't think that is important to this discussion, she does mention all the time where the bible states there are passages where talks of numerous wives and concubines are mentioned. She also mentions passages where the gist of it is that nothing is "out of bounds" in the marriage bed.

 

Mrs. does still practice the faith and I am not of the faith, but do support her and slowly believe that she has been correct all along. But then again it's faith correct? Nevertheless, when I hear stories about all of her Christian friends who had affairs, got divorced, had affairs again....well you know. Isn't it better to enjoy each other and NOT have to hide what makes you tick sexually? We BOTH agree on that.

 

Just my point of view

 

I posted this several months ago....as of this week the plot thickens.

 

Mrs likes when I take sexy pictures of her. One evening she posed for a few and I took them with my iPhone camera (decidedly low tech). I downloaded them to her computer. She likes to play with them on her photo program and send them back to me usually as part of a "sext". Accidentally one of them found its way to facebook. I think this happened since she was uploading some photos and it found its way in. It was NOT a revealing shot. There was no nudity and it was HEAVILY photoshopped almost to the point of blur. Now she was wearing a G-string, but nothing showed at all except her legs, a pair of heels and her face. Actually for a cell shot, it looked very good.

 

She did not know it uploaded and within 4-5 hours half of her Christian friends either sent her nasty messages telling her she was in a bad place and if she wanted to get out, they would help her, otherwise they didn't want anything to do with her. The others either deleted or blocked her. How puritanical? Look in the mirror people.....let those without sin cast the first stone right?

 

My poor wife cried her eyes out for days over religious nonsense.

[Chicup 38]

lotsoffun201 said:

My poor wife cried her eyes out for days over religious nonsense.

 

She violated club rules. I'd say I feel sorry for her but that would be a lie, I don't, I'm happy for her. The reason is now she can see what the reality behind the club is. Sometimes it takes something like this to have an epiphany over what reality is.

 

I hope she has the strength of character to see that the problem is with them not her, and that her desire to be part of the club doesn't overcome the truth that the club is quite ugly under the surface.

[dayhiker 83]

Well, I don't see any problem with Christianity and swinging. As Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

[BigNikki 43]

Big Nikki here.

dayhiker said:

As Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

 

The conflict isn't with Christianity, it's with the strict, the judgmental, the narrow minded.

 

John and I are from tri-religious families and I can square our swinging with all three.

 

If we were dumb enough to come out to our families, some would condemn us, some would accept us, and there might be some who ask Where to we sign up?

[TheRedHalf 81]

I argue this point with my family all the time...

 

Only their god can judge them....

 

They're job is to love all others and help when asked....

 

If their help is not requested than let your god judge them in the end....

[sarinafoley 21]

There couldn't be anything more hypocritical than a preacher telling homosexuals they are sinners, opposing gay marriage ("marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman", they say) then heading off to a swing club to indulge in group sex, fornication and adultery...

 

Even if your a more liberal minded Christian, you're still giving money to an organization that fundamentally opposes swinging in every regard, and would probably ban it if they could...

 

Being a swinger is a call to atheism.

[Dont.Stop 339]

Slightly related... I know a man who is gay, but non-practicing because he can't justify it in his religion (Mormon). My daughter has a friend who shopped many different religions until she found the one that fit her beliefs.

 

To that I say... why do you need religion to validate your beliefs? You have the ability inside of you to treat people fairly and honestly.

 

Why is it we don't worship Zeus or Ra? Are they no longer gods? Or were they never? And who was Mithra, and why is that story so similar to Christian beliefs, but predates Jesus by 600 years?

 

Anyhow, I respect anyone's choice to believe. Just don't ask me to understand it.

[SW_PA_Couple 4,019]

. . . To that I say... why do you need religion to validate your beliefs? . . .

The social and group-support aspect of organized religious groups should not be underestimated. People who hold each other up and profess a common belief are much better adjusted, socially and mentally. When a person becomes aware that she or he is moving into another circle, a feeling of discomfort sets in. Not a reason to abandon the first circle.

 

The immutable truth professed by many organized religions actually evolve (am I allowed to use that word) continually. Some, to take an example, have come around to having women as rectors and ministers. Who can say what other kinds of evolutinary changes might yet be possible.

[want2watch40 20]

The social and group-support aspect of organized religious groups should not be underestimated. People who hold each other up and profess a common belief are much better adjusted, socially and mentally.

 

I have to say that it doesn't take an organized religion to get this. The difference I see is that once you do something that is outside of the "circle's" belief, you are shunned and people within the 'circle' look down their noses at you.

 

Take another instance of a social group with support. Someone comes in to the bar where I'm hanging with my biker friends. This person starts some crap with me. Just watch and see how much support I have then.

 

I don't think it has as much to do with the organized religion. Most of them are so closed minded that anything out of the 'normal' is just repugnant. I think it has more to do with personality and willingness to not be so critical of others that make me better adjusted, socially and mentally.

 

Too many within the organized religion circles are hiding their true self. This is hypocritical and the reason I left the circles.

[Coupleerotic22 1,417]

Being a swinger is a call to atheism.

 

WOW!! I thought it was a call to no strings attached sex. I knew I should not have skipped that newbie orientation.

[Chicup 38]

Coupleerotic22 said:

WOW!! I thought it was a call to no strings attached sex. I knew I should not have skipped that newbie orientation.

 

As an atheist I have to agree it is NOT a call to atheism. I think atheists have a far easier time in swinging mentally but I was an atheist 20 years before I thought of swinging.

[C&H 17]

Someone please explain how you cannot be follower of Jesus and do what he did and enjoy a robust sex life. To me the two are complimentary.

 

And if a husband and wife share an equal balance of power in the marriage and agree that the lifestyle is a shared desire, how is it adultery?

[Coupleerotic22 1,417]

C&H said:

Someone please explain how you cannot be follower of Jesus and do what he did and enjoy a robust sex life. To me the two are complimentary.

 

And if a husband and wife share an equal balance of power in the marriage and agree that the lifestyle is a shared desire, how is it adultery?

 

Maybe I misread you first sentence. But as a Christian myself, I get irritated when people who are not Christian's asked loaded rhetorical questions like "how can people be Christians, its blah, blah blah." Some people don't understand, I get it, it is their choice. By the same token, I don't understand atheism either, but I don't ask "how can they be atheist," either.

 

Some Christians and atheist alike will tell you that the swinging and Christianity are incompatible, you can be one or the other, but not both. We have found a way to be both and are comfortable with it.

 

The same goes for beliefs with Christianity. There are many traditions, rules and "laws" we don't agree with or apply to our lives. Sure there are basic tenets that are the pillars of Christianity, but many of the things in organized religions are constructs that we feel don't apply. But as long as they are not harmful to others we believe in live and let live. If some Christians believe a robust sex life is not part of Christianity, then so be it, too bad for them.

 

So how can anyone be a Christian and believe or not believe something? We each choose our own path, we respect peoples right to choose their path and hope for the same from them. If they are genuinely curious to know how we came to those decisions we will try to tell them.

[Chicup 38]

Being I was raised Christian and attended Christian schools I feel completely qualified to say anything about the Christian faith

 

One thing I don't understand is how people can claim to be of a faith and then pick and choose the parts based on what they feel they think it should be. Is it the word of god or is it vague suggestions to be modified by mortal wants, desires, and sensibilities?

 

All I can say is if I did believe that Jesus was the son of god, and he did indeed come save us from our sin, I'd sure as he'll not be trying to read into the bible to justify extramarital sex acts when eternity awaited me. Seems like a very poor risk vrs reward.

[lookingfornow 115]

One thing I don't understand is how people can claim to be of a faith and then pick and choose the parts based on what they feel they think it should be. Is it the word of god or is it vague suggestions to be modified by mortal wants, desires, and sensibilities?

 

I think it is at this point that most of these debates start to fall apart. What exactly is the word of God? What does it mean to claim to be of a faith? Almost all faiths are based upon someone else's interpretation of God's word since few of us have had a direct conversation with Him (well, I talk to Him a lot but, sadly, He has yet to speak to me directly).

 

I count myself a Christian and I generally follow the more Protestant teachings. For example, I don't believe that a record of good works is necessary for salvation. But, really, who on this earth is empowered to tell me that their understanding and appreciation of the teachings found in the various books of the Bible (Old and New Testament) is more correct than my own.

 

Let us all remember that the concept of monogamy within marriage is a concept that has only recently been embraced (in the last 100 years or so) as expected within the Judeo-Christian tradition and even then, mostly only within the United States. Many Europeans of all sorts of Judeo-Christian faiths still practice the concept of limited breaks from monogamy within matrimonial relationships while, for example, on annual vacations, etc. Earlier in time, it was standard practice for a man, particularly a wealthy man, to have his wife and his mistress or mistresses. Fidelity was only really expected of the wife. This double standard dates back in the Judeo-Christian tradition to a time well before Christ. The Old Testament is filled with stories of great Jewish leaders and kings who, even after the Commandments were delivered, still practiced non-monogamous sexual behavior (taking multiple wives and “laying” with all sorts of servants and non-wives). Thus, adultery, as God meant it, cannot equate to any non-monogamous act within a marriage relationship.

 

The sexual double standard historically embraced within the Judeo-Christian tradition came under direct attack in the 1960s when the advent of oral birth control removed the principal articulated reason for insisting upon sexual fidelity from women in marriages--the risk of the woman procreating a bastard child. Note: recent genetic testing supports the Kinsey observations reported in the 1940s and 50s that, notwithstanding the double standard, large percentages of women in marriages were behaving non-monogamously. After the advent of birth control, women were much less accepting of the double standard and began to insist that their husbands adhere to the same standards of fidelity as was expected of them. Divorce rates then started to rise as men (and women) continued to act non-monogamously in their marriages in violation of the new expectations of strict monogamy (resulting in the serial monogamy that is so prevalent today).

 

Now, getting back to the Judeo-Christian tradition...what was meant by adultery in biblical times? Simply stated, “adultery” was not a sexual crime--it was a crime against a man’s property. The Judeo-Christian tradition has long favored the passage of wealth and property from generation to generation within families. A man (who was primarily responsible for the care and growth of wealth within a family) had an affirmative interest in knowing that the baby (particularly a male heir) carried by his wife was, indeed, his child. Cuckoldry, in the biblical sense, was a crime of trespass against the estate of the wife’s husband's family because it created the possibility that the husband's family's wealth would pass to someone else's progeny. From biblical times until only just recently, the only way that a husband could be assured that his wife carried his child (and that the husband's wealth was passing to his progeny) was by denying the wife sexual intercourse with any other man.

 

During Christ’s time on earth, several passages in the New Testament report Christ’s thoughts on the sanctity of marriage. However, in my view, those comments are an attack on the then present Jewish practice of permitting a husband to divorce a wife under various circumstances. Indeed, the practice of divorce, which had been strictly limited in early Jewish tradition, had become very commonplace and was a right that could be bought under almost any circumstances.

 

The problem with divorce in Biblical times is that the divorced woman was left with very limited future prospects. Remember, in this period, a virginal bride was expected in most marriages in wealthy families. Traditionally, a virginal bride gave her virginity to her husband after marriage in exchange for the husband’s promise to care for her for the rest of her life. She then became the vessel through which the husband's lineage was propagated. The promise of lifetime care and support was the consideration given by the husband to the wife because, once the virginity was surrendered, the woman would be unable to attract a mate of equal status in the community. Again, by the time of Christ, wealthy Jewish men were rather routinely rejecting and divorcing women, particularly barren women, leaving these women without the support that they had bargained for in exchange for the surrender of their virginity.

 

Paul also talks about marriage in a couple of his letters. However, he is very careful to separate his thoughts regarding marriage from those that he ascribes as God’s or Christ’s thoughts. Paul had a very narrow view of the value of sex generally and was fighting hard to expand his religion into areas where polygamous sexual practices dominated and the concepts of marriage were not well accepted. Paul viewed the pleasures of sex to be a barrier to the growth of Christianity (particularly in the Pagan regions of the world).

 

Now, I would expect a lot of people to say....rationalization, rationalization, rationalization. And, perhaps it is. But, we should all remember some basic truths...

 

1. The only expressed word of God we arguably have is the Commandments, and then only to the extent that the Jewish tradition accurately captured them and we agree with the translations to English.

 

2. The next best articulation of God’s will that we have is Christ’s words and deeds while on this Earth. Sadly, we have no video or audio tape to which to refer. Thus, his teaching are largely known to us only through the perceptions of others. Perhaps those perceptions have been accurately recorded or are divinely inspired. For my part, because I count myself a Christian, I have to believe that the Gospels are more accurate than not--at least with respect to the more important, central themes.

 

3. Thereafter, we have the additional texts and teachings that the leaders of the Christian movement in the first 400 years of the church deemed to be sufficiently central to the religion to incorporate into the Bible. Again, we can all debate the divineness of those teachings. Doing so does not make us non-Chirstians. Indeed, I believe that individual Christians have an obligation to themselves and to God to find for themselves the meanings in those teachings.

 

This is all a very long winded way of saying--I see absolutely no conflict between calling myself a Christian and, yet, rejecting the interpretations that others would give to God’s words or Christ’s deeds.

 

[two4youinswva 3,067]

I was raised in a church that, to their credit, believed you should study the teachings, and, without relying on emotion, but rather on reason and what you learned, come to be a follower of Christ. Unfortunately for them (or me, depending on your perspective), my studies and reasoning led me to my atheism.

 

That being said, I have always been an all in or all out kind of person. In all the time I studied the bible, I never got the vibe that an activity like swinging would have been condoned. Even if I could point out a passage here or a passage there that may be interpreted to fit what I wanted to believe, that would have felt too much like I was playing religious buffet.

 

So, yeah, if I were still a believer, I would personally have a very hard time reconciling my beliefs with swinging.

 

As a non-believer I don't have a problem with those that can reconcile their religious beliefs with swinging. It's a non-issue for me, since I only am interested in one of those two things.

[Powerglide 235]

I think that some of the confusion is caused by the fact that the noisiest Christians today are a certain type of evangelicals who promote a very restrictive understanding that religion's message. They often go on about "Biblical morality" and "Biblical this" and "Biblical that" on TV, but often have the most childish understanding of the book they claim God wrote. Curiously, the founding apostles like St. Peter and so on never read the Bible! In any case, insofar as the message of Christianity is love and honesty, then it is certainly compatible with swinging.

[Lascivious L&L 865]

I have to agree with lookingfornow that faith, belief, and the Christian religion are poised upon what god and Christ actually said. Is the bible the word of god?

 

The first question is which bible? There are many different, sometimes very different bibles. Does the present bible contain the actual words of the original gospels? Do the original gospels actually contain the accurate words of Jesus? If you've read the eminent biblical scholar Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" or "The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot" you'll understand that the various Christian bibles are a hodgepod of writings hand copied down the ages with mistakes and deliberate changes inserted by those scribes who copied.

 

No manuscript exists written directly by anyone who met or even saw Christ. Copies of the gospel that exist were written centuries after Christ lived. To me swallowing the notion that this is how god passed his word to us is ridiculous. The bibles that exist are written by men, copied by men, and as fallible as men.

[two4youinswva 3,067]

Now, I would expect a lot of people to say....rationalization, rationalization, rationalization. And, perhaps it is. But, we should all remember some basic truths...

 

1. The only expressed word of God we arguably have is the Commandments, and then only to the extent that the Jewish tradition accurately captured them and we agree with the translations to English.

 

2. The next best articulation of God’s will that we have is Christ’s words and deeds while on this Earth. Sadly, we have no video or audio tape to which to refer. Thus, his teaching are largely known to us only through the perceptions of others. Perhaps those perceptions have been accurately recorded or are divinely inspired. For my part, because I count myself a Christian, I have to believe that the Gospels are more accurate than not--at least with respect to the more important, central themes.

 

3. Thereafter, we have the additional texts and teachings that the leaders of the Christian movement in the first 400 years of the church deemed to be sufficiently central to the religion to incorporate into the Bible. Again, we can all debate the divineness of those teachings. Doing so does not make us non-Chirstians. Indeed, I believe that individual Christians have an obligation to themselves and to God to find for themselves the meanings in those teachings.

 

I guess my question would be, if there is this much doubt about the accuracy behind these truths, then where is the base for one's beliefs?

 

While I disagree with the beliefs of those that believe the bible is the infallible word of their god, they at least have a solid foundation to build their beliefs on. Those that debate whether this writing is legitimate, or whether the wording was changed, or interpreted differently, or applied to a different time, seem to be building their beliefs on constantly shifting and shaky ground.

[Coupleerotic22 1,417]

two4youinswva said:

Those that debate whether this writing is legitimate, or whether the wording was changed, or interpreted differently, or applied to a different time, seem to be building their beliefs on constantly shifting and shaky ground.

 

I will say this, my understanding of the Bible and what it say started as a teen. It predates my participation in swinging by almost 30 years. So I am not trying to force fit swinging into what I believe.

 

Where I went to church we studied the Bible in it's original languages. The pastor had graduate degrees in those languages as well as theology. He was pretty well versed. Sermons where not the fire an brimstone type. More like sitting in class with a series of Bible versus on an overhead projector. He would then break down each verse in it's original language and in context of the time and current day interpretations. Long story short, there were many things that are interprets differently by various denominations and many are twisted to suit a point of view. I always asked him questions after church and many were on social norms.

 

Unfortunately, swinging was not one of them, as I had no idea what swinging was. But some of the questions I did ask seem appropriate to this discussion.

 

1. Adultery - I had to do with property and a covenant between two people. I relation to modern times covenants, agreements between two people are solemn but can change as long as both parties agree.

 

2. In terms of people holding the Bible up and saying it condemns X. At the time the debate of homosexuals and eternal damnation was a hot topic in the news. I asked him about it. Officially the church did not take a position, because the Bible did not say what many where holding up to say. So he would not condemn it, but the Bible did not specifically condone it, so neither would the church. I told him that sounded like a cop out, he laughed and he said it was not his place to substitute his opinions for Gods, so he was neutral on it. That was a pretty radical stance for a church back in that time.

 

3. There are plenty references to sex, marriage, monogamy etc., in the Bible and many of them do not jive with what most churches preach, so based on what I learned in my youth I don't put a lot of stock in them.

 

4. And finally, faith, grace and mercy. We are supposed to live our lives as much like Christ as possible, but we are not perfect and that is why God sent Christ in the first place. He died and absolved us of our sins. Believe in Christ and follow his teachings we have mercy and grace. We don't deserve it, in fact there is not much we can really do to earn it, beyond faith. But we have it. That is the bedrock, the constancy, that I build my faith on.

 

Am I right, or wrong. I am not sure. But I am comfortable enough to know that even if I am wrong, I can ask for and receive forgiveness.

[dayhiker 83]

There are quite a few ways to approach the Bible and sexuality. Often those that present the strictest rules ignore as much of the Bible as the preach from my observation.

 

Several have been posted above. Another one I use is Hebrews 11. Its a listing of men and women of faith in the Bible. They are set up as examples for us.

 

Abraham had sex with his wife and her handmaiden. The Bible has this as not an act of faith but doesn't picture it as a sexual sin. After Sarah died Abraham married again and had concubines. We call Abraham the father of our faith.

 

Sarah asked her husband to have sex with her handmadien. God never condemns her for doing such.

 

Jacob had 2 wives and two handmaidens. His is considered the father of Isreal. Again, this is never viewed as being sinful.

 

Moses had 3 wives. God defends Moses when he takes his 2nd wife and says he is faithful in all his house.

 

etc. You can study the list if your interested. The above gives the idea.

 

Not all those listed did things sexually that are recorded and conservative Christians would consider sinful today. But about half of the names saints in Heb.11 and are said to be examples of faith did sexual things that today would keep them from being leaders in the church and probably would mean they would be kicked out of the church for.

[two4youinswva 3,067]

I get what you're saying in how you've come to your beliefs, and respect their origins. The thing is, what about those that come to different conclusions? Is every Christian right in what they believe, and if so, what does that do to the value of Christianity? If everyone isn't correct, then how do you know which one is right? Why is it so convoluted and difficult to come to a consensus? If I were allowed to play god for a day, and I wanted everyone to have a chance to live eternally, I'd lay out the rules, policies and directives in an A, B, C manner, and not let them get lost in so much flotsam and jetsam. If people decided to add "stuff" that created that confusion and lack of focus on the big prize, I'd take god-like steps to rectify the situation.

 

Coupleerotic22 said:

4. And finally, faith, grace and mercy. We are supposed to live our lives as much like Christ as possible, but we are not perfect and that is why God sent Christ in the first place. He died and absolved us of our sins. Believe in Christ and follow his teachings we have mercy and grace. We don't deserve it, in fact there is not much we can really do to earn it, beyond faith. But we have it. That is the bedrock, the constancy, that I build my faith on.

 

Am I right, or wrong. I am not sure. But I am comfortable enough to know that even if I am wrong, I can ask for and receive forgiveness.

 

When I was a believer, this was always another hang up I had. Why would god create me so that I'm destined to fail? Then, when I do become saved, I get what feels like a Get Out of Jail Free card because I just have to ask to be forgiven. I understand that you're supposed to have true remorse for that to work, but I would think that I'd have to enter that sinful situation with no doubt in my perception at the time that it wasn't a sinful thing to do. If I go into a situation thinking it is wrong, or possibly could be wrong, then I don't think I have the right to ask for forgiveness on the back end. I knew what I was potentially getting into.

 

I'm not knocking anyone that believes. I think some people need a religion, and their beliefs have helped them deal with their lives. I just think it's interesting how people come to so many different conclusions based on the same writings.

[dayhiker 83]

Thought I'd list a more general argument for swinging being a better ethic and closer to the Bible ethic that what many Christians live in this sexual area.

 

Honesty. I'd argue that honesty and truth are major values in a Christian ethic.

 

There has not been recorded a society where men and women have been virgins when they got married and lived a monogomous life. Individuals and couples, yes. But a large portion of every society, no matter how seperated the sexes, find a way to have sex before marriage and after marriage.

 

Adultery is dishonest. Its about lying, sneaking around and not telling ones spouce what they are doing or how they want to experience sex. Usually the marriage is over.

 

Swinging is about honesty. Its about being honest. Sexual desires for variety beyond the couple are brought into the light. A way to meet that desire is figured out. Or a compromise is worked out. What they do they do together as a couple. Often the marriage is stronger because they have deal with the issue in a way that they both can live with, its not broken their relationship.

 

So I'd say the monogamous couple and the swinging couple live within the Christian ethic. The adultorer is outside the Christian ethic.

[Coupleerotic22 1,417]

I'm not knocking anyone that believes. I think some people need a religion, and their beliefs have helped them deal with their lives. I just think it's interesting how people come to so many different conclusions based on the same writings.

 

That's cool. I get it. Not everyone understands my beliefs, and many disagree with me vehemently, swinger and Christian alike. I appreciate you being respectful when discussing them. I try to remain respectful of other peoples belief systems when I post and speak (at times I fail). But I admit I get snippy when people disrespectful or dismissive of mine.

 

I don't go out and try to convince people to agree with me. However, I have no problem discussing beliefs in this manner and answering questions. You don't agree with me, but are respectful, which I appreciate and will do my best to address questions. Although I readily admit I don't have all the answers. I am still in search of them and realize I may never find many of them in this life.

 

As for your other questions:

Why no consensus? Because humans try to figure it all out. Make sense of something that is eternal and without end. I am pretty educated, have a decent IQ, but when I start thinking about time without end, a universe with no bounds, it gets a bit overwhelming. Forever is a pretty easy concept until you start giving it serious thought.

 

As for playing God for a day. He has given us all we need to do for eternal salvation and it is not difficult. There are not a laundry list of rules and hoops to jump through. All we have to do is believe in Christ and we are saved. And you are correct, people add a lot of "stuff" but it is human nature to want our stamp on things, even if that is not what God wants. The bible shows this time and time again, even among some of the most faithful.

 

Get out of Jail Free card. God created us in his likeness and for his pleasure. By pleasure it means he takes pleasure in creation. In his likeness does not mean a carbon of himself. He gave us free will to choose. If you could MAKE someone love you, how gratifying would it be. They loved you only because you made them love you. With free will we choose to love God or not. He has shown us his love by giving us Christ, believe and love him and you have eternal life.

 

Also, we are born with sin and live sin everyday according to the Bible. All sins are the same in the eyes of the Lord. I was taught to pray for forgiveness for sins I was aware of those I was not. Based on what I know, I don't think what are doing is sinful because sex is not sinful and I am not breaking any covenants. I am being truthful and kind to others. But if I am wrong I am still asking forgiveness for sins I commit and am not aware. So yeah it is like a get out of jail free card in a sense.

[two4youinswva 3,067]

Coupleerotic22 said:

That's cool. I get it. Not everyone understands my beliefs, and many disagree with me vehemently, swinger and Christian alike. I appreciate you being respectful when discussing them. I try to remain respectful of other peoples belief systems when I post and speak (at times I fail). But I admit I get snippy when people disrespectful or dismissive of mine.

 

I don't go out and try to convince people to agree with me. However, I have no problem discussing beliefs in this manner and answering questions. You don't agree with me, but are respectful, which I appreciate and will do my best to address questions. Although I readily admit I don't have all the answers. I am still in search of them and realize I may never find many of them in this life.

 

We're good. I appreciate those that have thought their beliefs through, and don't believe because they always have and were raised that way. Thanks for the civil discussion.

 

Only one follow up to your response:

 

Quote

There are not a laundry list of rules and hoops to jump through. All we have to do is believe in Christ and we are saved.

 

Christians can't agree on this. There are those that say you must believe, repent, and be baptized, and cite scripture to support their belief. Many believe just as you do, citing scripture as well. The lack of agreement on this very basic thing (salvation) is a real sticking point for me. I'm not asking you to justify why you believe what you do, or point out why those that believe differently are incorrect. Just pointing out the disagreement within the Christian community.

[Coupleerotic22 1,417]

There are those that say you must believe, repent, and be baptized, and cite scripture to support their belief. Many believe just as you do, citing scripture as well. The lack of agreement on this very basic thing (salvation) is a real sticking point for me.

 

I agree it is a sticky wicket. I cannot account for them, but many of those I have seen make those arguments also believe the Bible says that they are unable to support. Thanks goodness for free will.

 

Let me clear up one thing I said. Based on what you wrote I am note sure how you took this "I appreciate you being respectful when discussing them." I was saying thanks, you are being respectful and I appreciate that. Not that I wish you would be respectful. I just wanted that to be clear.

[Alura 2,766]

There is a "laundry list." It's called the Nicene Creed. From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

 

Nicene Creed (ni'sen') 1. A formal statement of the tenets of Christian faith, and chiefly of the doctrine of the Trinity, set forth by the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. 2. Any of several modifications of this statement, now used in the services of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and certain Protestant churches.

 

Alura

[lookingfornow 115]

two4youinswva said:

Is every Christian right in what they believe, and if so, what does that do to the value of Christianity? If everyone isn't correct, then how do you know which one is right? Why is it so convoluted and difficult to come to a consensus?

 

Does a faith only have value if it has a well defined, rigid set of rules that must be followed? What if God intended that every person have some latitude in defining the faith that works for them within certain limits, and Judaism and/or Christianity correctly reflected that intent, would these faiths be less valuable or more valuable?

 

 

two4youinswva said:

If I were allowed to play god for a day, and I wanted everyone to have a chance to live eternally, I'd lay out the rules, policies and directives in an A, B, C manner, and not let them get lost in so much flotsam and jetsam.

 

Certainly it would be easy for a Supreme Being with a need to narrowly control personal behavior in order to ensure personal salvation to set forth in a clear, unambiguous, and unassailable way a narrow set of rules for controlling all of our lives. Even easier still, that Supreme Being could alter our very nature so as to ensure that our conduct never transgressed into an area placing our souls at risk.

 

But, what if that same Supreme Being valued a gift He had given all of us that would either be reduced or eliminated by either altering our nature or tightly controlling our actions? Free will, for example. Also, what if He intended Salvation to be easily obtained and arduously lost?

 

I appreciate that you have decided that no faith conforms with your understandings of life and the universe, but is it possible that, in rejecting faith, you have created a standard for faiths that is unobtainable by any faith because that is what you need to support your own personal beliefs?

 

 

two4youinswva said:

If people decided to add "stuff" that created that confusion and lack of focus on the big prize, I'd take god-like steps to rectify the situation.

 

But, what if the big prize is not Salvation? What if the big prize is free will in seeking to obtain Salvation? Indeed, what if Salvation would be rendered meaningless without free will because its obtainment would be pre-ordained. Perhaps God has elected to constrain Himself in fashioning his churches because he must rely upon the acts and efforts of men in order to preserve our free will. Would not any direct effort by God to “rectify” a particular situation ultimately reduce or eliminate our individual ability to find our own way in life?

 

 

two4youinswva said:

When I was a believer, this was always another hang up I had. Why would god create me so that I'm destined to fail?

 

Wow,....I really don’t know what to say other than that--just perhaps--you are really destine to succeed unless you work really, really hard at failing. You should read Marlowe’s classic morality play, The Tragicall History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus. It is an interesting commentary on faith and salvation and examines the very question with which you are clearly struggling.

[Meetussoon 68]

We are all imperfect and sinners. All sin, is sin. Adultery, fornication, and sex outside of your marriage are sins; just as lust, greed, sloth, envy etc. I don't try and justify our sexual choices as acceptable or less sinnful. I pray for the insight and willpower to someday be able and willing to follow god more closely.

[two4youinswva 3,067]

Damn, this is going to take a while, and will turn into a tl:dr post.

 

lookingfornow said:

Does a faith only have value if it has a well defined, rigid set of rules that must be followed? What if God intended that every person have some latitude in defining the faith that works for them within certain limits, and Judaism and/or Christianity correctly reflected that intent, would these faiths be less valuable or more valuable?

You answered my question with a question. Are you saying that you believe, within Christianity, everyone comes to their own conclusion, and whatever their conclusion is, it's the right one, and they will have eternal life?

 

 

Quote

Certainly it would be easy for a Supreme Being with a need to narrowly control personal behavior in order to ensure personal salvation to set forth in a clear, unambiguous, and unassailable way a narrow set of rules for controlling all of our lives. Even easier still, that Supreme Being could alter our very nature so as to ensure that our conduct never transgressed into an area placing our souls at risk.

 

But, what if that same Supreme Being valued a gift He had given all of us that would either be reduced or eliminated by either altering our nature or tightly controlling our actions? Free will, for example. Also, what if He intended Salvation to be easily obtained and arduously lost?

 

My statement was, I would make it clear what the path to salvation is. The free will would still be there. There would still be millions that didn't believe, but for those that did, the chance of misunderstanding what was necessary for eternal life would be reduced or eliminated.

 

 

Quote

I appreciate that you have decided that no faith conforms with your understandings of life and the universe, but is it possible that, in rejecting faith, you have created a standard for faiths that is unobtainable by any faith because that is what you need to support your own personal beliefs?

 

I understand your question, but, the answer is no. My atheism is independent of any perceived standard I have put forward in this thread. In other words, if those standards were met, I'd still be an atheist.

 

 

Quote

But, what if the big prize is not Salvation? What if the big prize is free will in seeking to obtain Salvation? Indeed, what if Salvation would be rendered meaningless without free will because its obtainment would be pre-ordained. Perhaps God has elected to constrain Himself in fashioning his churches because he must rely upon the acts and efforts of men in order to preserve our free will. Would not any direct effort by God to “rectify” a particular situation ultimately reduce or eliminate our individual ability to find our own way in life?

 

So, you're saying free will is more important than the chance for eternal life? Maybe so. I know it is for me, since it's the one thing I believe in out of the two choices.

 

I would think a supreme being could give obvious evidence that it truly exists as the supreme being, make his/her expectations and desires clear and achievable, and still maintain humankind's free will to choose whether or not to obey. Otherwise, the supreme being wouldn't be a god.

 

Quote

Wow,....I really don’t know what to say other than that--just perhaps--you are really destine to succeed unless you work really, really hard at failing. You should read Marlowe’s classic morality play, The Tragicall History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus. It is an interesting commentary on faith and salvation and examines the very question with which you are clearly struggling.

 

The destined to fail question was a statement on the "All are born in sin" belief. From the outside looking in, this feels like the sales pitch "You've got something that's broken, and we can fix it, if you'll just sign right here...."

[lookingfornow 115]

At the risk of moving too far off the topic of the thread...

 

two4youinswva said:

You answered my question with a question. Are you saying that you believe, within Christianity, everyone comes to their own conclusion, and whatever their conclusion is, it's the right one, and they will have eternal life?

 

I asked a question because I need to know what you mean by “value” in order to answer your question.

 

In answer to your question, no, of course there are some basic no-nos that place your soul in peril but, in general, Salvation requires little more than adherence to God’s Commandments. Matthew 19:16-19. However, because strict adherence to the Commandments is difficult, transgressions (sins) can be forgiven through a genuinely repentant attitude and belief in God and Christ. John 5:24.

 

Because of free will, how we repent and how we believe is a decidedly individual matter dictated by our individual understandings of what faith requires. It is against our understanding of what faith requires of us that the sincerity of our repentance and beliefs will be judged. So, in a sense, our individual conclusions regarding what our faith requires does control our access to eternal life.

 

Now, bringing this debate back on topic, the issue is whether swinging within a marriage can be reconciled with an understanding of God’s law within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Looking at the basics I have set forth above, the only God given admonition in play is the Seventh Commandment. So, resolution of the question presented depends upon whether Christianity (or Judaism) requires monogamy in marriage. My original posting dealt with that issue.

 

For those who read this and are certain that non-monogamous behavior is inherently sinful or that sex, lust, greed, etc. are sins that, by themselves, are capable of keeping us from Salvation, please point to the passages from the Bible where God or Christ say that is so. Indeed, point to any passage within the Bible in which any author ties non-monogamous behavior, or simply sex, lust or even greed directly to damnation.

 

 

two4youinswva said:

My statement was, I would make it clear what the path to salvation is. The free will would still be there. There would still be millions that didn't believe, but for those that did, the chance of misunderstanding what was necessary for eternal life would be reduced or eliminated.

Perhaps that clear statement has been given. How clear does it need to be?

 

 

two4youinswva said:

I understand your question, but, the answer is no. My atheism is independent of any perceived standard I have put forward in this thread. In other words, if those standards were met, I'd still be an atheist.

The question wasn’t whether your standards could be met. The question is whether your standards were correct or whether you needed them to justify your atheism.

 

 

two4youinswva said:

So, you're saying free will is more important than the chance for eternal life? Maybe so. I know it is for me, since it's the one thing I believe in out of the two choices.

 

Yes.

 

 

two4youinswva said:

I would think a supreme being could give obvious evidence that it truly exists as the supreme being, make his/her expectations and desires clear and achievable, and still maintain humankind's free will to choose whether or not to obey. Otherwise, the supreme being wouldn't be a god.

 

Appearing on a mountain and scribing some Commandments is not enough? Sending his Son to die for our sins is not enough? I am not sure what more you are looking for. It seems He has done plenty enough to satisfy many.

 

 

two4youinswva said:

The destined to fail question was a statement on the "All are born in sin" belief. From the outside looking in, this feels like the sales pitch "You've got something that's broken, and we can fix it, if you'll just sign right here...."

 

I am not trying to sell anything. I don’t want you to sign on anywhere. But, there are many, many Christians who are deeply troubled by whether non-monogamous behavior is inherently sinful. And, to many, many Christians, it is. While you may question the sufficiency of a religion that is flexible enough to allow for a plurality of views regarding sex, sexuality, damnation, etc., the fact is that not all Christians believe that non-monogamous sexual behavior is inherently sinful. And, I believe, we have a good basis for our beliefs. That you cannot reach that reconciliation or have elected atheism does not mean that others cannot reach an alternative conclusion.

[two4youinswva 3,067]

That you cannot reach that reconciliation or have elected atheism does not mean that others cannot reach an alternative conclusion.

This I agree with.

[Powerglide 235]

two4youinswva said:

While I disagree with the beliefs of those that believe the bible is the infallible word of their god, they at least have a solid foundation to build their beliefs on. Those that debate whether this writing is legitimate, or whether the wording was changed, or interpreted differently, or applied to a different time, seem to be building their beliefs on constantly shifting and shaky ground.

 

Your point would be valid if the Bible were completely unambiguous and internally self-consistent. But it is not, so there is no "solid foundation" that can be free of interpretation. There are many inconsistencies within the Bible, not least in what it teaches about sex and marriage. (I highly recommend the book "Unprotected Texts" by Jennifer Wright Knust, a fine Biblical scholar and a believing Christian.)

 

In fact, most of those who claim to believe in the literal truth of the Bible follow an interpretive scheme known as Darbyism, which is, at least to my eyes, very bizarre and not at all a natural reading of the texts. That is why many Christian traditions teach that the Bible can only be understood with the help of an inner light or with the help of the holy spirit. Whether one is a believer or an atheist, as I am, I don't really see any honest alternative to building our beliefs on shifting and shaky ground.

 

For some two thousand years, philosophers have sought a 'solid foundation' that would guarantee that our knowledge is free from error, but no such thing has ever been found, and there are compelling reasons to think that such a foundation is impossible. We just have to do the best we can with imperfect materials.

[interested-05 135]

Bigots inhabit every part of society. Some of them religious, some of them atheist, some agnostic. Some rich, Some poor, every nationality, every ethnic group.

 

You accept religion it is ok, you don't that's ok too. There is a lot of hatred being spewed against those of religious belief here.

 

If it is because we are being oversensitive here, it is because the rest of society has been using the sensitivity issue for way too long. Pretending that only religious people are insensitive, callous and bigots doesn't meet the reality test. Some of those who rail hardest against religion are lacking in sensitivity and a profanely inaccurate understanding of historical facts.

[Powerglide 235]

We are all imperfect and sinners. All sin, is sin. Adultery, fornication, and sex outside of your marriage are sins; just as lust, greed, sloth, envy etc. I don't try and justify our sexual choices as acceptable or less sinnful. I pray for the insight and willpower to someday be able and willing to follow god more closely.

 

I'd be interested in hearing why you think fornication, sex outside marriage, etc. are sins, if they do not harm the bond of trust and honesty within the marriage.

[Lascivious L&L 865]

The Christian bibles (plural) were written by men, copied and printed by men, and interpreted by men. Thus they are as fallible as men.

 

No "Word of God" has been written by god. If the word had been written by god, perhaps the inconsistencies and obvious human hands in the word would be cleared up.

 

If god actually wrote or spoke the word, perhaps the Christian religions would come together as one and the rest of the world's religions also.

 

The present disagreements, sometimes unto war, within the Christian religions and between Christian and other religions, should be ample proof to reasonable people that such disagreements and wars are human and are provoked by human words calling themselves the word of god.

[Guest thewriter]

As a Christain, swinging is about you and your spouse having sex with another couple as you watch each other having sex with another couple. The Bible talks about adultery having sex behind your partners back and lusting well is having sex with that person in your head, where as with swinging you are not lusting you are not commiting adultery you are having sex with that person as your partner watches you so how can that be lusting or adulter.

[Guest thewriter]

We are Christains (well the wife is jewish) as far as swinging well you are watching each other having sex with another person you both kniow what the other one is doing. The Bible does talk about adultery that is cheating, sex behind your partners back we all know that is wrong. As Christains we both kniow what the other one is doing who they ae doing it with see no conflick or problem in swinging and been a Christain.

[johnstarx5 61]

Everybody's religious beliefs are different and unique.

 

For me I am Christian (Catholic) and a swinger.

 

Many have a literal interpretation of the Bible but not me. In my opinion the Bible can be summed up here. God so loved us that he created man and this world. God so loved us that he gave us his son. Jesus so loved us he died on the cross and rose on the third day. (see the love?)

 

Sexuality is a gift from God to us to enjoy (but not abuse).

 

In my opinion we as Christians should spend our time loving our fellow man and woman as God love us and not trying to pontificate on some high moral grounds.

 

And this may sound strange to some here last Saturday I spent the evening at my local swinger's club and then was an alter server at mass on Sunday.

 

Ok just my 2 cents.

[femininetouch 15]

I'm glad you posted this, if you google Christian swingers this is one of the first things to come up and this is what led my wife and I here a while back.

[Guest sandraandalex]

I just don't think that with billions of galaxies that a god would care at all who you fuck.

 

That being said, I'll defend to the death your right to have a religion. I'll also defend to your death my right to have none.

[RunSilentRunDee 127]

I'm a Christian, have been all my life. My wife's Jewish, has been all her life. One of the reasons why we work so well together is that each understands how important this is for the other person, and supports the other person about it in every way possible.

 

How do I think it's possible to be both a Christian and ENM? (Ethically Non Monogamous, which can be swinging, or open-marriage, or polyamorous, or many other things)

 

I think it's about two separate things.

 

First, Jesus said, "Love everyone, for God loves everyone." What is love? Well, now we have agreed on the substance; we're just working out the details.

 

Second, I'm aware that Christianity as-it-has-been-lived has been hugely influenced by the attitudes of the societies in which it has lived. This makes me much less wed to adhering to the attitudes of distant and long-vanished societies.

 

For example, polygamy. Judaism has never declared polygamy "unlawful" (in terms of Torah and rabbinical interpretations). European rabbis advised European Jews to stop practicing polygamy, in around the 1200s I believe, because the European goyim used that as an excuse to attack the Jews. But that was a practical matter, not a religious matter.

 

Christianity began among the Jews, so the first Christians were open to polygamy. Why did the Christians abandon it? I think it's because Christian demographics shifted so quickly to being majority-gentile ... and all the gentiles in the Roman/Hellenistic world were monogamous. So Christianity "imported" monogamy from the gentiles, without leaving any record of any active debate or decision about the matter.

 

A book that has really opened my eyes is "Sex At Dawn," by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. It presents the origins of human sexuality in the context of small bands of immediate-return foragers -- who were radically egalitarian and radically generous.

 

They quote an anthropologist who studied a "primitive" tribe in the upper Amazon basin. This tribe expects its members to be generous ... with their genitals. They have a derogatory word which means, "stingy with his/her genitals." During a festival, the anthropologist sheltered a young man who was fleeing from a repulsive woman ... whom he could not turn down without being accused of being "stingy with his genitals." The anthropologist reported that this offense was considered "worse than adultery."

 

As I read the Bible, I now see some passages in a new light:

- Jesus's injunctions to be radically generous, rather than stingy

- The practice of the Israelites in the wilderness, who foraged for manna and whose foraging had to be immediate-return ... because if they gathered anything more it just rotted.

 

I think there are echoes of this earlier society, and of its attitudes, in the Old and the New Testament. Along with attitudes of later societies that intruded upon them (such as the notion in the Tenth Commandment that a man's wives are his property).

 

And this has made me feel less ... naive ... about the attitudes of so many Christians today.

 

For if God is humble and loving -- and I do think He is -- and if we are supposed to be like him as much as we can -- ditto -- then which is the better course?

 

For husbands to treat their wives as property? While wives manipulate their husbands so that they will get what they want?

 

Or for men and women to share their bounty, openly, honestly, and with good communication and with agreement among all?

 

Rhetorical question, of course. It simply illustrates my current position.

 

And, no, I'm not going to try to convince my church's clergy that I'm right. I'm not naive about that, either.

 

As for "adultery" -- that word comes from the verb, "to adulterate." Which means, to make less pure, less effective, by mixing foreign substances in. For example, one might adulterate salt by mixing white sand into it, and then selling it as 100% salt.

 

My wife and I have discussed this point, specifically. We agree that what we are doing is not weakening our marriage. It is making our marriage stronger. Because sometimes adding an "impurity" can improve the thing. For example, when you add tin to copper in a certain way, you get bronze. And when you add carbon to iron in a certain way ... you get steel.

 

Free advice, and worth every penny. FWIW. YMMV. IMHO. And all of the rest of the usual Internet disclaimers.

 

Oh, and I have just created a "Club" on this site for "Christian Non Monogamy," where people who would enjoy talking about this can find like-minded people!

[Chicup 38]

Your own, personal Jesus. Someone to hear your prayer, someone who cares.

 

As a non-religious person, I find it fascinating how people attempt to justify their actions with their religion, swinging or otherwise. I find my solution is far more straight forward.

[OLDER BIGUY 21]

I to had concerns but have decided that my god made it so enjoyable that he knew we would have to share. I also agree with the people who say its better than divorcing and hurting the kids. (I know the hurt. My mom was married 4 times by time I was ?

[AskMeOk 148]

Well Padoc, many people do choose to believe in a higher power, myself included. The OP asked for view points on the Christians and Swinging.

 

Since a majority of the public falls into that category,

 

I think you miss the point. Every person who considers themselves a "Christian" does so with their own understanding of what they believe the Bible says. There are over 41,000 denominations of Christianity, which to me, indicates massive confusion on the "one way."

 

Bottom line: I can't think of any one of those denominations that would endorse the lifestyle as following Jesus's teaching. If one's individual beliefs take precedence..... that is fine, but then you can't extrapolate to the "majority."

[Chicup 38]

I think you miss the point. Every person who considers themselves a "Christian" does so with their own understanding of what they believe the Bible says. There are over 41,000 denominations of Christianity, which to me, indicates massive confusion on the "one way."

 

Bottom line: I can't think of any one of those denominations that would endorse the lifestyle as following Jesus's teaching. If one's individual beliefs take precedence..... that is fine, but then you can't extrapolate to the "majority."

 

While I agree with you, maybe the Unitarians would let it slide

[AskMeOk 148]

While I agree with you, maybe the Unitarians would let it slide

 

Yes, I think you are correct. I had to look that up... I had understood that Unitarians were not Christian, but that is not a strictly correct assessment. We have friends of forty years that are Unitarian ministers... I would not hesitate to discuss swinging with them, because I know they would not be judgmental.

[mexicolovers 24]

Sometimes people need to explore aspects of their lives that are contrary to their faith. Better to be honest and explore those thoughts and feelings now than to pretend they don't exist. Is it right or proper or acceptable isn't really the issue. I have a need that must to be explored to be true to myself.