Is swinging morally acceptable?

singleagain · April 5, 2007

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?

BiloxiCouple · April 5, 2007

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 · April 5, 2007

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.

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 · April 5, 2007

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.

intuition897 · April 5, 2007

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.

FunCalifCple · April 5, 2007

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 · April 5, 2007

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 · April 5, 2007

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 · April 5, 2007

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 · April 5, 2007

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.

The Fuse · April 5, 2007

Is swinging morally acceptable?

The short answer is: It depends on whose morals.

You may or may not pass your morals through a religious filter, but in the end, all you have is your own self-judgement.

My chosen filter is the Golden Rule.

singleagain · April 5, 2007

intuition897 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."

In this, intuition, we are very much in agreement. My post is not to say that I agree with what my pastor said in his sermon. Rather, I hope this thread will gender thought provoking and rational discussion about the very nature and wholesomness of the swinging lifestyle.

Also, in response to BiloxiCouple, the very oldest New Testament manuscripts known to man were written in the Greek language. Check this out with any religious or secular authority on the Bible and you will find it to be true.

Cpl2share · April 5, 2007

I just love a good religious or political debate. Can't seem to walk away from it even if there is a stack of work to do.

First: I am an atheist (converted from very strict Protestant Christianity) and Mrs. Cpl is an agnostic (converted from even more sexually repressed Protestant Christianity).

All religions regardless of the bastardization that has occurred over the centuries have the same basic core belief: Do good to others. That is what the entire precept of all religions teach.

Religion in and of itself was summed up by (I now forget who: PT Barnum?) :

"Religion is the opiate of the masses."

Religion (In my opinion) through the centuries has been used by government establishments to control the populace. That is all that it amounts to (IMO). The greatest way to control people is to convince them that what they are doing is wrong and that they need to do it your way. Humans are driven my the "animal" urges: Sex, food, and shelter. If you control those urges and or the acquisition of them you control all thought and behavior. What better way to control a person than to tell them where they can live (ghettos, concentration camps), what they can eat (no pork, no meat on Friday) and who they can have sex with (no interbreeding.) Let us take this one step further: The Roman Catholic Church (may have changed this one in the last 25 years, help?) has had the standing rule that it was a sin to use birth control (other than rhythm method). Now we control sexuality by bringing heavy consequences to a pleasurable act. Either you have to get pregnant (the pain is punishment to women for eating of the forbidden tree) and raise a child or go to hell for using birth control.

Morality is what the current government and its related society defines. In our current society, yes swinging is immoral. With our current predominantly Judeo-Christian religious culture swinging is immoral. In my current belief system (Do not bring harm to others.) Swinging is not immoral because it is bringing mutual pleasure to myself and others without harming anyone.

Each person has to define their own morality and make that fit into the religious system that works for them....

MoonLightKiss · April 5, 2007

intuition897 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.

You are so right Intuition. This statement alone is the reason I am not a fan of organized religions. I prefer my own approach. My God is very simply My God. And my relationship with him/her is personal. No pastor in a suit standing in front of a church can tell me what is right or wrong or whether or not I have a shot at the afterlife. That rests between me and my higher power. When it seems that every church I walk into seems to take a rule that the majority of society believes in, and then try to dig a verse out to support it, meanwhile, if you read the verse in front of it and the verse after it, you start to see that what is being taught in church isn't really the full translation.

I also believe in what BiloxiCouple said. The Bible, while its original text may indeed be God inspired, the bottom line is it was written by flawed men, translated countless times by flawed men, edited by flawed men, and taught by flawed men. By flawed I mean imperfect. So how can anyone say beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no mistakes in today's current version?

While I was swinging, I just never felt that is was wrong. Same concept of lying or stealing. If I told a lie, even a white lie, on some level I would feel guilty, and would feel the need to admit to my lie and ask for forgiveness. I have felt the need to say "I'm sorry" in a lot of instances. NEVER once have I even begun to feel "guilty" while swinging. Maybe over a situation that occurred while swinging, but never the act of swinging itself.

Of course, I could have no real clue what I am talking about, so I am really interested in Spoo's explanation

warkman · April 5, 2007

I also believe in what BiloxiCouple said. The Bible, while its original text may indeed be God inspired, the bottom line is it was written by flawed men, translated countless times by flawed men, edited by flawed men, and taught by flawed men. By flawed I mean imperfect. So how can anyone say beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no mistakes in today's current version?

I would go even further to wonder what "God inpsired" means. At some point, at some given time, a very select few people claim to have had contact/communication with "God" or "the Gods", in whatever iteration/religion you want to pick. These few and their minions have managed to have influence on the majority of the world's people for whatever reason. I tend to think that the "mystery" of our existence and conscience haunts all of us to one degree or another. This desire to find meaning makes it pretty easy for us to create a myth to satisfy that desire. Generally speaking, people tend to believe what they want to believe with or without much thinking or investigation. Some people's beliefs evolve, some don't. Logic tells me that if there are many religions/beliefs concurrently and over time (with many interpretations of same,) then that is a reflection of the necessity of the individual to manicure "truth" to suit themselves. Whether this manifests itself as function of conformity or non conformity, it is still subjective. If God is as powerful and omniscient as everyone says, then He/She/It seemingly has picked a very inefficient way to effect "His, Her, or Its" will. Why not just get on the old "world bull horn" like in the Monty Python skits and give everybody a damn good revelation/talking to when needed? Even then, I suppose you'ld have a number of non believers. There is always going to be conflict of belief, be it within one person or between many persons. Even the "golden rule" doesn't necessarily work given people of disparate beliefs. All I know (and I think I said this in a thread a while back) is that I don't really trust other human beings to give me the 411 on God.

intuition897 · April 5, 2007

I prefer my own approach. My God is very simply My God. And my relationship with him/her is personal. No pastor in a suit standing in front of a church can tell me what is right or wrong or whether or not I have a shot at the afterlife. That rests between me and my higher power. When it seems that every church I walk into seems to take a rule that the majority of society believes in, and then try to dig a verse out to support it, meanwhile, if you read the verse in front of it and the verse after it, you start to see that what is being taught in church isn't really the full translation.

Ditto. I have found it difficult to find a church that allows for individual interpretation of the Bible. It irks me to no end that others will insinuate - or even spit at me outright - that there is no way I could possibly be a Christian if I am not in a monogamous relationship (AKA living a life of sin). How the hell would they know?? It's none of their business, and there's no way they could possibly know what goes on between my heart and God's. Jackasses. I AM a Christian, and I still enjoy fellowship with others who share my beliefs. That's all. I don't have to have exactly the same view of life as everyone else to have that one thing in common. Seems like a simple enough thing, yet so many people want to complicate the hell out of it.

I also believe in what BiloxiCouple said. The Bible, while its original text may indeed be God inspired, the bottom line is it was written by flawed men, translated countless times by flawed men, edited by flawed men, and taught by flawed men. By flawed I mean imperfect. So how can anyone say beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no mistakes in today's current version?

Exactly. Like pure light filtered through a dirty lens. The light is still there, but you have to take into account the dirt you have to look through to find it. I don't know if you would call them "mistakes" per se, but I don't think everything in the Bible needs to be taken literally word for word to get the most of it. On the contrary, it would see we get a better look at an impressionist painting when we're not so close to it that we can smell the paint.

While I was swinging, I just never felt that is was wrong. Same concept of lying or stealing. If I told a lie, even a white lie, on some level I would feel guilty, and would feel the need to admit to my lie and ask for forgiveness. I have felt the need to say "I'm sorry" in alot of instances. NEVER once have I even begun to feel "guilty" while swinging. Maybe over a situation that occured while swinging, but never the act of swinging itself.

Ditto again!

intuition897 · April 5, 2007

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.

I guess because we do believe in something bigger than ourselves. Call us foolhardy if you like, but I feel that, as a human being, our self-awareness has exceeded our abilities to govern ourselves as individuals and as a society. Hence all the crap we see in the headlines about rapists, murderers, child-molesers, thieves, etc. We are imperfect, yet we can conceive of perfection. Therefore we are doomed to a life of wishing for that which we cannot have by our own means: heaven. My faith bridges that gap for me and allows me to feel whole as a person, loved and valued. I can take the burden off myself that is too much for me - or for any human being - to bear, accepting my limitations, and accepting God's gift of Grace through Jesus' sacrifice. This is not the hopeless, self-deprecating, depressed state of mind that it sounds like. Much as swingers accept their desires for other sexual partners and find relief and freedom in that acceptance, so, too, does the Christian find freedom in accepting help outside of themselves to attain perfection.

Don't care so much about finding justification or approval through a book, just because the words have been around for thousands of years. I care because the words in that book ring true for me. I'll align myself with truth. I don't care if the truth is written in an ancient book or if it's written on a paper napkin, it's the meaning of the words that I care about, not where they are written.

Cpl2share · April 6, 2007

Just want to clarify: It is not my intent to disparage anyone elses beliefs. Although I do not believe in any organized religion, or god, I do respect every other persons right to believe as they wish. It works for ME but just like swinging, it is not for everyone.

girlsnboys · April 6, 2007

The author of the bible is not God, it is written by men. There were several councils, in fact hundreds of years after the death of jesus christ to amend & decide what was pertinent to be written down and what should be omitted in the book. To base your theory on this fallacy, completely negates the rest of your argument.

cubnamy1995 · April 6, 2007

I guess because we do believe in something bigger than ourselves. Call us foolhardy if you like, but I feel that, as a human being, our self-awareness has exceeded our abilities to govern ourselves as individuals and as a society. Hence all the crap we see in the headlines about rapists, murderers, child-molesers, thieves, etc. We are imperfect, yet we can conceive of perfection. Therefore we are doomed to a life of wishing for that which we cannot have by our own means: heaven. My faith bridges that gap for me and allows me to feel whole as a person, loved and valued.

We sure missed you while you were gone. You are always so eloquent in what you say intuit.

I want to avoid regurgitating what others have said here. I think we all agree to respect the beliefs of others, even if they don't work for us. Here's my thought:

The OP asked if swinging is morally acceptable. Why do we automatically jump to religion? I know that most world religions do teach at least a basic code of ethical behavior, but being moral and being religious are not the same thing.

In some religious circles, I'm sure swinging would be wrong. In others, maybe not. But answering for the moral part is harder to answer. I'm gonna give it a shot

Anything can be moral or immoral depending on the context. Is killing another human being immoral? In some cases, yes. In others, no. Are your activities harming anyone? Only you would know your situation enough to answer that. We can draw some lines that most agree on. Don't cheat. Don't lie. Don't be irresponsible. Don't have gangbangs in front of children or the elderly.

But religion serves two purposes. While it lays out a code-of-conduct to center people morally, It also serves as a means to restore and maintain people emotionally and spiritually as Intuition said.

I wouldn't knock anyones religious needs any more than I would knock someone's physical needs. Some folks have a religious life that brings them a sense of peace and happiness in what seems like a chaotic world. Others don't need it. Neither is right or wrong. But morality is a different subject entirely. I know many, many athiests and agnostics who I consider to be very moral people.

OK, almost off my soap box. We can never be 100% sure that our actions will never hurt anyone, but I believe that if we do our best, and try to be rational, reasonable human beings, we will remain moral, regardless of what we do for fun.

My .02 for what its worth.

cubnamy1995 · April 6, 2007

Cpl2share said:

I just love a good religious or political debate. Can't seem to walk away from it even if there is a stack of work to do.

First: I am an atheist (converted from very strict Protestant Christianity) and Mrs. Cpl is an agnostic (converted from even more sexually repressed Protestant Christianity).

All religions regardless of the bastardization that has occurred over the centuries have the same basic core belief: Do good to others. That is what the entire precept of all religions teach.

Religion in and of itself was summed up by (I now forget who: PT Barnum?) :

"Religion is the opiate of the masses."

Religion (In my opinion) through the centuries has been used by government establishments to control the populace. That is all that it amounts to (IMO). The greatest way to control people is to convince them that what they are doing is wrong and that they need to do it your way. Humans are driven my the "animal" urges: Sex, food, and shelter. If you control those urges and or the acquisition of them you control all thought and behavior. What better way to control a person than to tell them where they can live (ghettos, concentration camps), what they can eat (no pork, no meat on Friday) and who they can have sex with (no interbreeding.) Let us take this one step further: The Roman Catholic Church (may have changed this one in the last 25 years, help?) has had the standing rule that it was a sin to use birth control (other than rhythm method). Now we control sexuality by bringing heavy consequences to a pleasurable act. Either you have to get pregnant (the pain is punishment to women for eating of the forbidden tree) and raise a child or go to hell for using birth control.

Morality is what the current government and its related society defines. In our current society, yes swinging is immoral. With our current predominantly Judeo-Christian religious culture swinging is immoral. In my current belief system (Do not bring harm to others.) Swinging is not immoral because it is bringing mutual pleasure to myself and others without harming anyone.

Each person has to define their own morality and make that fit into the religious system that works for them....

I agree. And PT Barnum was close. It was actually Karl Marx who said that.

cubnamy1995 · April 6, 2007

singleagain said:

Also, in response to BiloxiCouple, the very oldest New Testament manuscripts known to man were written in the Greek language. Check this out with any religious or secular authority on the Bible and you will find it to be true.

Yes. Finally I can use that Master of Divinity degree I paid for!

Both old and new testaments had been passed down through oral tradition for many decades before ever having been written down. The old testament went from hebrew to greek to latin to german to english in the KJV. New testament literature started as either Koine Greek or Aramaic, to Latin, to German, to English in the KJV.

Only the newer translations, such as the NRSV actually translate straight from the ancient texts to modern English.

Oh, and just to show off a little Mark was the first Gospel written (around 54 AD), with Matthew and Luke (the other 2 synoptic gospels) written down about 10 years later, then John another 10 years after that.

Thank you for indulging me.

Tybee Swing · April 6, 2007

The OP asked if swinging is morally acceptable. Why do we automatically jump to religion? I know that most world religions do teach at least a basic code of ethical behavior, but being moral and being religious are not the same thing.

This was the point of my post in this thread, too. Morality does not have to have anything to do with religion or faith. Some of the most ethical and kind people, living by their own personal standards, are non-believers.

singleagain · April 6, 2007

cubnamy1995 said "Don't have gangbangs in front of children or the elderly." I agree about the "children" part of your statement...but please...have all the gang bangs in from of this old codger you wish. I love it !

As for the rest of you...continue on while I watch the gang bang...this is the kind of discussion I love to be a part of...and just as a reminder...I don't necesssarily agree with everything my pastor and church teaches. And I guess its a little unusual, intuition, that he does encourage independent thinking and study. Quite refreshing, actually...

singleagain · April 6, 2007

Tybee Swing said:

This was the point of my post in this thread, too. Morality does not have to have anything to do with religion or faith. Some of the most ethical and kind people, living by their own personal standards, are non-believers.

The Bible defines religion as visiting "the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspoted from the world." This in itself is a moral tennant that only the psycho mind could reject...don't you think? Ethics can be defined as never harming others by one's own actions. And probably the greatest treatise on the subjects of ethics and religion is found in the epistle of James in the New Testament.

Swinging is not morally wrong. Forcing one's own beliefs on others may be the most morally unacceptable act one can attempt. This is something the organized church tries to do every day.

intuition897 · April 6, 2007

singleagain said:

Swinging is not morally wrong. Forcing one's own beliefs on others may be the most morally unacceptable act one can attempt. This is something the organized church tries to do every day.

:Dito:....with one small clarification. Swinging is not morally wrong for some people. For others, it feels wrong, dirty and it pulls them away from what is good and right in their lives. For these people, it is most certainly morally unacceptable. This won't change unless they do, and being happily adjusted to the lives that they live, most have no interest in changing their beliefs.

I have no interest in recruiting new swingers unless they are already there and interested with questions. I'm not about to go out screwing up people's lives, insisting that my way of life is the best way to live. It's the best way for ME to live, but I have no right to try and squeeze someone else into something that doesn't fit them. That is immoral.

I think we've had a few atheists in and out through this thread - which is cool - and I just wanted to clarify something else. Religiosity is not the same as spirituality. I call myself Christian, but unfortunately that label carries a bit of stigma. It's usually synonymous with 'hypocritical, holier-than-thou, brainwashed sheep.' Well, the impression that others get is unfortunate, but I still share the same fundamental beliefs...with a twist.

LOL_OMG · April 6, 2007

Interesting topic, I've enjoyed reading the posts. I'm also intrigued that the focus is on the Bible and the interpretations on it, when there are many more religions which are based on other documents.

I would add that social rules and laws have much more to do with morality than religion, and indeed it would depend on the area in the world in which you live. My take is no matter what your religion or spiritual beliefs, if you live by them....you can sleep at night.

Peace,

Mrs

Zedd · April 6, 2007

I'm with Billie and Elaine on this.I have valid reasons. Church is not a valid institute. It is rather an institute of control. The only reason for the existence of religion (of ANY kind) is to divide and conquer, to cause enmity , racial hatred and discord. This statement is self evident and can be seen by merely looking at the current world condition. The most glaring 2 examples are Muslim extremism and it's brother, christian extremism of which g.w. bush is a proponent. He did say he was chosen by god, didn't he?

We have to look at the facts here. It is FACT that there was no Jesus Christ. There is rather a higher awareness and a need to be responsible toward one-another which transcends that which is thrown at us from pulpits around the planet. Religion, politics and war should all be outlawed.....immediately.

LOL_OMG · April 6, 2007

Zedd

You are so far off base I won't even bother quoting you. First, forget the politics. The key is, if in your mind you make peace with your own higher being, it can only uplift yourself. Whatever your religion, if the ultimate goal is harmony then who the **** are you to say it's a bad thing.

intuition897 · April 6, 2007

I'm with you, Mr. LOL. I dunno, Zedd, how much evidence do you need that Jesus actually lived? He's had plenty written about him from several different angles by people who knew him directly and indirectly.

And doesn't this sound vaguely familiar?

We have to look at the facts here. It is FACT that there was no [name of religion that varies from mine]. There is rather [my religion/belief] which transcends that which is thrown at us from [the mouths of other idiots]. [Your] religion, politics and war should all be outlawed.....immediately.

Hmmm... deja vu.

cubnamy1995 · April 6, 2007

I'm with Billie and Elaine on this.I have valid reasons. Church is not a valid institute. It is rather an institute of control. The only reason for the existence of religion (of ANY kind) is to divide and conquer, to cause enmity , racial hatred and discord. This statement is self evident and can be seen by merely looking at the current world condition. The most glaring 2 examples are muslim extremism and it's brother, christian extremism of which g.w. bush is a proponent. He did say he was chosen by god, didn't he?
We have to look at the facts here. It is FACT that there was no jesus christ. There is rather a higher awareness and a need to be responsible toward one-another which transcends that which is thrown at us from pulpits around the planet. Religion, politics and war should all be outlawed.....immediately.

Well, the point I was trying to make earlier is, so what? Obviously, Zedd, you are the type who does not need a set religious structure to come to terms with the world you live in. Others find it very comforting.

It's not a situation where those who need their religious life are "weaker" than those who dont. This is a big reason why religious folks tend to come and go in and out of their faith. Sometimes they need it more than others.

As I aluded to in my earlier post, I am a former protestant minister and seminary graduate. While we can debate the existence of God until the cows come home, the most important question is what is the need for God in someone's life? If you have a pretty good grip on things, and you don't need organized religion to help you out, then good for you. If you find peace, love and a sense of community from it, good for you too.

Bottom line, I think we all agree that bringing no harm to others is the paramount principle moral folks live by. The Wiccans put it best in the Wiccan Rede by saying so long as no one is harmed, do what you please (paraphrasing)

Spoomonkey · April 6, 2007

(The following is very likely the longest post I have ever written. I warn you in advance and apologize in advance. If you don't read it, I won't be offended. I probably wouldn't read it myself)

Ah - the age old question:

"Is God mad at me 'cause of where I done stuck it?"

It is a fair question for some, a moot question for others (atheists, agnostics, etc.) and a life-directing question for many of those who remain. It is obvious that there are folks who are not religious (like myself) and who do not respect people who are religious (unlike myself and most of the other posters). So - for those who may come along the board and stumble across what for them is a life-directing question (with hopefully direction-affirming answers) we should do our best to respect what they are needing. If it is a moot question, feel free to say so and move on. If it is a fair question, give a fair answer.

SA - while the rules you put in place are a challenge to work within (I suspect that you knew this going into it) I will do my best to stay in the middle of them. To be fair up front, I would probably not have answered this question since I have done so a number of times on this forum, but it seemed a few folks were interested in my input.

I am one of those "it is a fair question" people. Having spent a dozen years in paid ministry, I am now at the point in my life where I consider myself agnostic. Well - perhaps that is not really accurate... I have recently begun studying Native American spirituality and was really moved by their simple name for God which means "The Great Mystery". For me, even after many years studying and working in "the show", there is no better - more appropriate name for God in use anywhere. He truly is, at his best, a mystery.

And as the song by U2 says, "the more you look the less you know."

So, regardless of my "background" I will say that the smarter I got, the less I knew for sure. And - so here we are...

My answer for me would be - "I don't know - and I really don't care. Because if God is different than the way that I understand him to be, I probably don't want to know him." Sound arrogant? Maybe it is. But God only makes sense to me if his truth can truly be boiled down to - as Jesus said and as has already been pointed out - "Love God with all your heart, soul and mind. And love your neighbor as yourself." After a lot of reading and study, that's it. That's the whole of it.

And as has already been pointed out - this isn't exactly a uniquely Christian structure. "Harm none," is Wiccan, for example. The problem with Christianity is that it stumbled across a big fat "duh" and laid claim to it.

Where my morality tends to part from others is not in the jots and tittles of some religious doctrine, but in the inability to agree to that simple creed "harm none" or "love your neighbor as yourself" or "The Golden Rule" (which can be interpreted as stated before in a way that makes it completely void due to poor wording). When my choices hurt others, I am being immoral. When they do not, I am being moral - regardless of what those people may think about the choices I make.

Having said that - I can answer your questions within your 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.

But - I would like to add two more "agreements" if I may. This should look quite familiar to some:

4. God is unchanging.

5. God is love.

Simple tenants that are common to the Christian faith - and will keep us going in the right direction.

(An aside: I once saw a couple of kids about to get into a fight. Before they started, they began setting down rules. "You can't hit me in the face," said one kid. "And no hitting in the stomach!" said the other. One rule after another until they ended up laughing and being done once they realized that their entire dispute would have to be settled over punches in the shoulder. This reminds me of that. Laying down such rules only makes it impossible to fully explore the wide array of ideas. After all - aren't we, by setting down these rules, dictating in some way the direction of the discussion? But, I will play along until we are only poking each other with the agreed upon punch.)

So - next we want to talk about context. Context is like looking at Google Maps. If I need to find a place, I type in an address. I hit a button and - BAM - up comes a street, a cross street, and maybe a couple of restaurant choices. BUT - I don't know how to get there. To figure that out, I have to back up a little - change my perspective.

Back up enough and I can see my house and figure out how to get to the desired address. BUT - How does it fit within my state? I can't really tell by what I am looking at this map, so I have to take a different perspective.

Once again, I can see my state - and while I can no longer see the street addresses of my house or where I want to go, I can see the town and where it is in the state - which gives me an appreciation of how it all fits. BUT - Where is my state? Is it on the East Coast? West Coast? Somewhere in the Great Plains? I can't really tell. Guess what! I have to change perspective.

I can do this until I pull out so far that not only do I no longer see where I wanted to go, I don't even see my planet spinning around down there. I only see galaxies and such. Suddenly I feel incredibly small and where ever it was I needed to go doesn't seem that important anymore. And I am struck with how incredibly insignificant those details really are.

The same thing happens when you look at the Bible. Using your first rule: "ALL scripture" we are forced to expand our vision beyond one or two choice verses. When you do this, most pastors' sphincters clench up like the jaws of a pit bull. "Wait a minute!" They cry. "No hitting in the face, I said."

But - really, let's back away for a minute.

But before we do, let's look at the real phrase in question - which is this: "sexual immorality".

What is "sexually immoral"? Are we really able to start on that phrase without prejudice? I suspect that we are not. My guess is that we have to start from our own cultural context, which is what we are all really wrestling against with these arguments anyway. That phrase in and of itself - without really defining anything (except maybe a habit of people to take advantage of others sexually) - is dripping with popular opinion. If you were to walk down a street of the average town and ask people to list acts that were "sexually immoral" it would look something like this:

1. Sex outside of marriage

2. Sex before marriage

3. Homosexuality

4. Bestiality (you'd get this from a blushing farmer)

5. Orgies

Etc.

BUT - is that an accurate list? Is that what God had in mind when he had this written down? It is hard to tell, really, because there isn't a specific list involved. Just a phrase. Take it out of any cultural context - be that Macedonia or the Bible belt - and it really doesn't mean a whole lot. That is important because we may be battling shadows here. It may be that we are looking at that phrase, assuming that it talks about swinging and then working ourselves backwards and in circles over nothing. That is the problem with much of popular theology - it reads the Bible with meanings culturally ascribed and ends up with an endless amount of circular reasoning that doesn't reach outside of comfortable opinion...

But I digress.

Let's assume that sexual immorality has to do with sex - but we don't know what sort of sex. We just know that it is bad and God doesn't like it. So what we will do is we will use Spoomonkey's patented "Google Map Method" and look at sex from a different perspective until we see it as a whole...

Sexual immorality? I have no idea what that means, so let's pull back a bit. Ah - here is something. Jesus actually forgiving an adulterous woman based on the fact that her sin was no worse than any one else in the crowd. Interesting. And here we see Paul (Paul for Christ's sake!!!) saying that there is no difference between women and men.

Hmmm... Interesting, but I am not getting the full picture - so let's pull back some more.

There I see David with a huge number of wives and concubines - and God blessing him with those. Oh but he steals Uriah's wife and God is upset about it...

Pull back...

I see a woman dressing as a prostitute and sleeping with her father-in-law... She sends him a message about taking care of your own and he proclaims that she is more righteous than he...

Curious...

A bit further and we see Onan, bound by duty to sleep with his brother's widow and God is pissed at him because he didn't "seal the deal" and jerked off on the carpet...

And as we pull back, there is so much sex in the Bible that it becomes a blur. And there really aren't that many examples of husband's and wives doing it only and forever with each other - and there are just a few examples of God getting pissy specifically for the sex itself - it always seems to be something else in the story that sets him off... The murder of a husband, the hurting of a spouse, the shirking of a duty...

But not sex...

And when I pull back far enough, I see a book. And I realize that what it stands for - ultimately - is grace. Regardless of your religious views - agnostic, Christian, atheist, Muslim - in the end, it really is a very compelling story about grace. And the details seem so insignificant.

Some people think that parts of the Bible are less true than others - tainted by the interpretation process, editorializing, and random selfish purpose. Maybe that is true. Maybe it is not. Maybe God really is big enough to deliver his message intact in the form of a book. Who am I to judge that. But without a doubt - where he really shines through - is when one guy walked up to Jesus and said, and I paraphrase for effect, "I really don't have time to go to seminary or study ancient languages or sit through years of Sunday school. I am not a scholar or a genius or even - if I am honest - a bright guy. I just want to know the bottom line. Give me the skinny so I can live my life."

Jesus took stories of arks and floods, apples and sin, towers and language, and sifted it all down to this: Love God with all your heart, soul and mind. And love you neighbor as yourself. And he explained how doing this would impact a person's spiritual walk when he said - all the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments.

Need a "One Minute Bible"? There it is. That is all you need to know. He didn't say "keep your fly up around chicks." He didn't say "thou shalt not lie in a pile as the heathens do." He did not say "marital bliss is found in the stale same-olds of vanilla sex and granny panties." He said "love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Intuition was brilliant in explaining how this works in a very simple way - how that translates and is exemplified by swing couples. Hers is probably much more readable than mine - but I had fun writing this.

In my life - I strive to understand "The Great Mystery" and to experience him as he wants to be experienced - not as a tired concept reduced to flannel boards and funeral-dirge-hymns. So - as best as I can - I follow the first commandment.

The second commandment - well, I can be selfish sometimes and a bit of an ass. I am working on that. But, until I get there, I do try my best not to hurt those around me with the things I do. Sometimes I am like a big clumsy kid stomping around with feet I've yet to grow into, but I understand the concept - "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." I'm working on that.

So - in conclusion (and I apologize again to anyone who read this. I wouldn't have. I'm impressed!!!) I think you answered your own question with your last line:

Does He even care as long as swinging activities do not cause harm?

No... I don't really think that he does. Sure, when you dig around a few words in a verse or two, it may seem that way. But you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. The inductive method has this limitation, I'm afraid. But when you look at it as a whole, sifted down to its singular, beautiful message it is easy to surmise that maybe God enjoys our happiness; maybe he enjoys our playfulness and our ability to truly experience the pleasures of the life he's given us.

singleagain · April 7, 2007

Spoomonkey wrote "but I had fun writing this." And I am sure, no doubt that you did. For all of you who have taken time to read my original post and Spoo's as well, kudos. I have refrained from responding to as many of the replies in this thread as I could. I'm a lot like Spoo because this is fun and I wanted to respond to each of you. Why would I not respond...well its quite simple...some of you, like Spoo and Intuition really do "get it!" And some of you want to get it...and some of you just don't. None of that makes you a bad person or a person that I wouldn't want to hang out with. If I responded to each of you and your individual points we may never end this thread (not that it would be bad to end it or to continue it) and I am sure we would never be able to come to agreement on many points.

Now before you begin to think me crazy or worse let me clarify a minor point. I do not agree with my pastor's interpretation of the paticular passages involved. I think he, like many of the other clergy I have known during my lifetime, is simply going with the flow.

Spoo is right about finding the context before making a decision. I have done that, I think. Let me relate a story...a true one that happened in our city this week. Two police officers were assassinated this past weekend. Each left a wife and one left two kids who will never get to know their dad. Our city came together and both were given funeral services that were incomprable. Sympathy and compassion were poured out on the families of these two men's families. I certainly don't mean to demean any of that as it was all very proper and I am sure was appreciated by the widows and their friends and families. There was, though, something lacking in all the pomp and circumstance of their respective funerals. Simply, there was a lack of any suggestion of how these two women who lost their husbands were to carry on physically. They will never hold their husbands again. They will never know the enjoyment of sex with them again. They will never experience so many things that "nice" people don't talk about in church. Why??? I think its simple...not many of us believes, deep down in our hearts, that sexuality should be expressed. We hid our sexuality because of what others will say. We don't talk about it because of the stigma attached to it that will cause others to say we are deviants.

Spoo is right. Whenever there is a story in the Bible about sexual expression, God does not condemn the sex...he always condemns the sin...and sex in and of itself is not sin. And that's the way it is with every incident of the type, no matter what the sin is. Consider gluttony, God wants us to eat. So when someone sins at the supper table, He condemns the sin, not the fact that people are eating. I could go on with all the other sins, but you get the idea.

Many of you have expressed the idea that one of your first considerations in choosing playmates is this: will I get enjoyment out of it. That is a reason to swing, but in my humble opinion, I don't beleive its the primary reason to swing. I'll leave it to you to correlate the first two commandments with the "what's in it for me" attitude. Comments please...

intuition897 · April 7, 2007

Need a "One Minute Bible"? There it is. That is all you need to know. He didn't say "keep your fly up around chicks." He didn't say "thou shalt not lie in a pile as the heathens do." He did not say "marital bliss is found in the stale same-olds of vanilla sex and granny panties."

LMAO Granny panties... [wiping away tears]

He said "love your neighbor as you love yourself."

I love ya's, every last one of ya! I'd even show you it if I lived closer.

This has to be the best damn thread on morality and swinging I have ever seen on the board. Google Maps. That was brilliant, Spoo, and exactly the right idea.

I was under the impression that the question of sexual morality was being asked within a Judaeo-Christian Biblical context, which is why I have answered it as such. But if you want to take God out of the picture, for the atheists out there, swinging is still a completely moral activity for those of us who are wired in such a way to do it in a healthy, balanced fashion. It truly adds to the lives of those involved in all ways, and when the participants show restraint and respect for the feelings and needs of others (people who do not want to or cannot swing), they are not doing anything wrong, and are acting morally.

It really is a matter of balance. We should be free to pursue the fullest life we can. This is a human right. Others infringe upon this right of mine if they don't allow me to do this. I'm sure that some folks out there would stop me from swinging if they could and they'd think they were doing me a favour ("Oh, you'll thank me for this someday..."). But they are overstepping their bounds. Everyone just needs to mind their own business and not bother themselves with things that truly don't concern them.

MoonLightKiss · April 7, 2007

Spoo, I was one of those waiting on your reply. When you say its a long post, you surely are not joking. And even though my eyes hurt so bad I don't think I will want to read again for a week...(Just kidding) as always, I was not disappointed. Google maps...whoda thunk it to be such a wonderful and appropriate analogy. Well done, and I loved it, absolutely loved it. Big hugs for typing so much.

WesternSwing · April 7, 2007

First, I find that the word "Gentile" is used in the New American Standard Bible rather then the International Version, where the word "heathen" is used. Gentile is used by all Judeo religions to describe anyone NOT of their faith. Jews call Christians "Gentiles", Christians call Pagans "Gentiles" (as used in the New American Standard Bible), and Mormon's use it to describe ALL non-Mormons including Christian's and Jews. Go figure. This one term alone shows the disagreements within Judeo-Christian religions to begin with. From there this whole thing just goes down hill as we look at all the versions of the Bible and how each varies in wording, and thus the intent of the translator.

And here is the issue: intent of the translator. It is commonly acknowledged that each translation of the Bible has taken-on the particular point-of-view and biases of the ones translating, or transcribing it at the time. In English alone we have 20 versions of the Bible. That means 20 different interpretations biased by the transcriber's personal ideas of morality.

Second, as you mention the Bible was written at at time when Jews were separating and distancing themselves as much as possible from the Romans. The first rule of religion is defining your differences rather than your similarities with other religions. Similarities make it too easy to lose followers who may find it an easy jump from their current religion to another because it's just "slightly different." So to retain membership religions emphasize the differences more than the similarities. Even Christian sects try to distance themselves from each other. So attacking sexuality, which was very liberal in Roman culture, and making it (in reality meaning "them") immoral, was a way to clearly define who the Jews were and what they stood for.

But, and here's my BIG BUT... When I read Thessalonians I don't see that sex is wrong in any manner other then sex that harms others, such as rape, pedophilia, cheating on your spouse, etc. For example the passage "and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter..." To me this clearly states that no person should do anything sexual that would harm another, not that any certain acts are forbidden.

But again, anyone can interpret it to match their particular ideas of sex and relationships.

Now, no longer being of Christian faith myself, I live by a simple rule "As you harm none, do as you will." Or more simply "Harm none". If your actions would harm anyone else emotionally, physically, financially, etc., then they are the wrong actions. Anything that does not harm another is not wrong. Pretty simple interpretation, I think. Therefore, I feel that as in nobody is being harmed by swinging, meaning nobody is being convinced, coerced, or manipulated into doing something they don't want to do, then swinging is just fine.

WesternSwing · April 7, 2007

Spoomonkey said:

BUT - is that an accurate list? Is that what God had in mind when he had this written down? It is hard to tell, really, because there isn't a specific list involved. Just a phrase. Take it out of any cultural context - be that Macedonia or the Bible belt - and it really doesn't mean a whole lot. That is important because we may be battling shadows here. It may be that we are looking at that phrase, assuming that it talks about swinging and then working ourselves backwards and in circles over nothing. That is the problem with much of popular theology - it reads the Bible with meanings culturally ascribed and ends up with an endless amount of circular reasoning that doesn't reach outside of comfortable opinion...

This is the big issue with interpretations of any religious "book", but Christianity in particular here. People start the question with their answer, then manipulate the information to support it. It's "I feel swinging is wrong and here is where it says so in the Bible." Rather then the approach you are suggesting which is "what is this passage REALLY saying." and leaving it open to discussion. Sure, there are theologians that do this, but the majority of the pastors, priests, and televangelists start with their opinion and set-out to prove how the Bible supports it.

Tybee Swing · April 7, 2007

Now, no longer being of Christian faith myself, I live by a simple rule "As you harm none, do as you will." Or more simply "Harm none".

Mr. WS, I can tell by your complete post that you know your Bible very well, and yet like me, you no longer hold to the Christian faith. I'm intrigued. What brought about your change? Do you now consider yourself agnostic, or do you now hold to a different faith?

Having spent a dozen years in paid ministry, I am now at the point in my life where I consider myself agnostic. Well - perhaps that is not really accurate... I have recently begun studying Native American spirituality and was really moved by their simple name for God which means "The Great Mystery". For me, even after many years studying and working in "the show", there is no better - more appropriate name for God in use anywhere. He truly is, at his best, a mystery.

Fascinating, Spoo! I had no idea that you were in the ministry (I guess I missed the past discussions like this). We have exactly the same position on the issue. I suppose I'd call myself agnostic, but there are great mysteries and I can accept that I simply don't know what the unknown forces of the universe are. Many people can't accept the not knowing. Personally, I think this is why they strive so hard to find something to believe in.

In the past, I had my heart set on becoming a missionary. Although not a minister, I was a paid staff member of a Baptist church at one point. I was the kind of Christian who studied my Bible daily, prayed constantly, was active in many Bible studies, memorized whole chapters of scripture at a time, taught Sunday School, witnessed. I really believed. This is such a far place from where I am today. Not that I'm not the same core person (I am), but my life is entirely different now, my outlook different. I'm actually a much happier and more peaceful person inside. For me, accepting the unknown and just letting it lie is part of the reason.

What brought you from the ministry to being an agnostic (or alternative/spiritual)? Are you more peaceful today, than you were during your years in the ministry?

Tybee Swing · April 7, 2007

Singleagain, you wrote to me back at post #31, and I'm finally responding (I've been working way too hard, sorry it took so long)!

singleagain said:

The Bible defines religion as visiting "the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspoted from the world." This in itself is a moral tenant that only the psycho mind could reject...don't you think?

Actually, I think that many people are so into themselves and their own small lives, that they don't reach out to others in the way that passage suggests (taking care of the orphans and widows - a/k/a those less fortunate, those who are suffering). I think that in our society today, not many people actively are charitable or caring toward other people outside of their immediate circle. They might think empathetic thoughts about people in need, but not too many folks are out there administering care or going out of their way to help the less fortunate. They may do it on occasion, such as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina, but people are suffering everywhere, every day. I confess that I'm not doing enough to help my fellow man these days, either. (That passage is James 1:27)

On the other part of that scripture - keeping oneself unspotted from (unspoiled by) the world - I guess that's subject to interpretation. I believe it means to separate oneself from worldly things and stay focused on godly things. The great majority of people aren't living that way - we're mostly a world of consumers and pleasure-seekers, focused on our personal goals and ambitions. So, I have to disagree that only the psycho mind could reject this tenant.

singleagain said:

Ethics can be defined as never harming others by one's own actions.

I agree, but perhaps that's only a portion of what encompasses ethics? My old Webster's Collegiate dictionary defines ethics as "the discipline of dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation". That can encompass many things.

singleagain said:

Swinging is not morally wrong.

Not wrong for me, not wrong for my husband. But if it caused inner turmoil, guilt, or pain for someone, I suppose it woudn't be morally right for them.

singleagain said:

Forcing one's own beliefs on others may be the most morally unacceptable act one can attempt. This is something the organized church tries to do every day.

I wholeheartedly agree with you! Banging on doors, badgering people into church, forcing doctrines and beliefs on others, isn't at all what I personally believe Jesus intended as "witnessing" to others. The Christian church has really got that all twisted up, I believe. Distorted.

**cringe** Years ago, I was one of those people.

Spoomonkey · April 7, 2007

Tybee Swing said:

Many people can't accept the not knowing.

This is a great line.

But this really ends up being the greatest challenge. The "faux-faith" of many religions says something to the affect of "I know that I know that I know." Very good, but doesn't that confidence take away some of the romance of faith? Isn't the beauty of faith wrapped up in the child-like wonder of wanting something to be true and believing that it is even on Christmases when present don't come?

I gave up trying to fill the void of "not knowing" when I realized that claiming to know/understand God was to climb up a ladder of my greatest intellect and slap him in the face. Besides, I am not so sure he is nearly as obsessed with us as we are with him...

Tybee Swing said:

What brought you from the ministry to being an agnostic (or alternative/spiritual)? Are you more peaceful today, than you were during your years in the ministry?

Divorce

Seriously - that is what did it. I really did love my job and enjoyed the creative outlets it gave me. I was paid very well and found great personal satisfaction in the challenge of being creative and compassionate with a system of stoic judgment. I thrived on trying to bring beauty back to dead flowers...

But - I realized even in my paid ministry days that God was not the limited experience that religions made him out to be by "systemizing" him. Leaving my career and the life that I had known (as a former Southern Baptist, I am sure you can appreciate their very stern and unforgiving view of divorce) I was forced to think of God differently than I had before. Within the context of my narrow background, I was damaged goods that could find peace only in groveling to a church and admitting how "sinful" I was in leaving a loveless marriage.

My authority issues wouldn't allow that

So I began to search. It has been a very long evolution evidenced by quite a number of posts on this board made when I still considered myself a Christian (a faith that I reject personally for the rigid structure, problematic history and experiential control - but yet still find great beauty in). Where I am now is far more peaceful - free - and real to me. (That'd make a great jingle)

But, I do not question someone else's experience - or the path that they choose to find meaning and purpose. My search led me through Christianity and did affect me in many positive ways - maybe even more positive than negative to be honest - it just didn't stop there. I don't regret my path - I just get impatient sometimes to see what is just around the next bend

Spoomonkey · April 7, 2007

WesternSwing said:

This is the big issue with interpretations of any religious "book", but Christianity in particular here. People start the question with their answer, then manipulate the information to support it.

To be fair to Christianity though - it is not the only religion out there where people have misused its scriptures the way you describe. There is a big difference between the beliefs and practices of the average Jewish person and an orthodox. And no one would deny the disparity in opinion between a radical Muslim and an "Americanized" Muslim.

The truth is that people NEVER get their beliefs out of a book - they get them out of their experience and then they tie it to something. The manipulations of scripture are simply the effort to support personal experience. And this happens within any systematic religion.

Tybee Swing · April 7, 2007

Fascinating reply, Spoo. Thanks for answering.

Leaving my career and the life that I had known (as a former Southern Baptist, I am sure you can appreciate their very stern and unforgiving view of divorce) I was forced to think of God differently than I had before.

Yes, I definitely understand how unforgiving they are. A divorced woman in the church is a pariah. But, it's much worse on the ordained, based on New Testament scripture. I assume you were ordained. Mr. Tybee was an ordained deacon, and he was banned from being a deacon after his divorce. It's especially cold considering the reason for his divorce: his wife cheated on him and then left him and their kids. Yet, he was treated this way, just when he could have used their caring and support the most.

It has been a very long evolution evidenced by quite a number of posts on this board made when I still considered myself a Christian (a faith that I reject personally for the rigid structure, problematic history and experiential control - but yet still find great beauty in). Where I am now is far more peaceful - free - and real to me.

Dito

My search led me through Christianity and did affect me in many positive ways - maybe even more positive than negative to be honest - it just didn't stop there.

Dito I feel the same way about Christianity. It had a positive impact on me in many ways and I'm grateful for some of the ways that it formed me. I don't hold any bitterness toward it. Although I don't believe in it anymore, I still respect the truths in some the writings and the wisdom in many of the teachings. I respect the bible as literature, but it holds no power for me, any more than other ancient literature, poetry, history, and mythology.

I understand why others believe, and I know how strongly they can believe it. I respect that.

warkman · April 7, 2007

Really great responses.

Spoomonkey said:

The truth is that people NEVER get their beliefs out of a book - they get them out of their experience and then they tie it to something. The manipulations of scripture are simply the effort to support personal experience. And this happens within any systematic religion.

This is what I believe. I'll go even further and say that folks continue to manipulate/interpret/spin the "manipulations of scripture" to rationalize their beliefs and behavior to a seemingly widely respected "moral authority" to live their lives the way they want, hopefully without too much if any disdain or reprisal from others.

singleagain said:

The Bible defines religion as visiting "the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspoted from the world." This in itself is a moral tenant that only the psycho mind could reject...don't you think? Ethics can be defined as never harming others by one's own actions. And probably the greatest treatise on the subjects of ethics and religion is found in the epistle of James in the New Testament.

Again, if I'm understanding this correctly, any of these statements is subject to interpretation without out an infinite itemized list of things and conditions that would, in the mind of the writer, have you be "spotted" by worldly things. Even if there was a list, one could interpret each item, not necessarily cynically, but with the best of intentions to include or exclude practically anything. If there's one thing that's true, it's that a lot of people believe differently than I on many things. The problem with trying to globally unite a philosophy of "don't hurt others" is that there will always be folks that believe that they or society are being hurt by the actions of others whether "they should or not". Even if a majority agrees, is it necessarily truth? I guess, if truth means you conform and reap the benefits of not being punished.

My goodness, I sound like a lawyer here (at least to me ) and I'm not. I started out in life pretty much believing everything I was told or taught that was delivered with an appropriate level of gravitas. Fifty four years of life experience and conflicting belief has taught me to be more wary. I think most people like to think that they embrace the "live and let live" philosophy, but if they get a bee in their bonnet about a situation, especially if it relates to their sense of sexual morality, they will usually try to "fix" it.

Apropos indirectly to the idea of people sincerely believing different things at different times, and trying to find balance and comfort given particular circumstances, here are some less biblical "wise sayings" or axioms for living that come to mind that are to one degree or another, in conflict. I have fun collecting these.

He who hesitates is lost.

Look before you leap.

Never look a gift horse in the mouth.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Birds of a feather flock together.

Opposites attract.

A penny saved is a penny earned.

You can't take it with you.

Swingercast · April 7, 2007

I read the whole thing. All of it up to here.

Whew!

Spoo, loved the Google analogy.

I have enjoyed reading all of your remarks and I've come to respect you even more. Thank you.

Have a great weekend.

sereneiders · April 7, 2007

Wow, 60 posts for a topic many of us deemed as "irrelevant".

Even Spoo beaten me with the post length (and I obligued)

Now, this is about a concept widely spread in several posts. It doesn't exist just one ethics, nor just one morality. Both concepts refers to policies, the rules telling you what's valid and what it isn't to reach your goals. IMO, the difeerence between them are that the former applies to oneslef, defines the individual desired behavior based on every one principles, while the later is based on the social consent about the ethics.

Religion, besides sprirituality, allways was a mean to organize the society (at some times of history this meant "controlling" it), by providing a morality, however, this could be rather "idealistic" instead of derived from the consented average guy ethics.

Of course, for such a lecture we should put this on an historical perspective.

The education, how spreaded is the ability to write and read, and latelly, the printing allowing texts to be widelly distributed (and the current mass media permanent grow and diversification) changed everything from the times most religions were developing.

Back then, the few ones able to read (or make you believe they read) were the ones able to "spread the voice" for the written words, were the one able to write down their toughts (no matter who inspired those words, i.e. God), leaving behind them their ethics as a legacy from where to develop a morality. Along history, this people had the power to "predicate the word", providing them a unique, valuable place inside the society.

The printing, the education, threatened this role, and it still does. The ones having (inheriting) this role are reluctanct to relinkish the power it once granted to them. To the point that even in the educational system, as for today you can see how this affected the classroom structure: there's one place for the one with that role, and the rest of the people is facing that place (and not facing each other).

So, there exist a political issue here, wheter to allow people to think for themselves, develop their own ethics from where to derivate a different morality, since this is what deprives that role from it value. This is what happend with many of the members who claim they were religious and turned into agnosticism or to their private perception for their spirituality.

This doesn't deprive the original question nor the question original context from it value. The morality "sugested" by this Bible (or whatever other version and/or translation) provides a framework to discuss as valid as our personal ethics does, while the attempt to extrapolate the conclusions from our current ethics into that framework seems pointless.

Besides the arguments, it's obvious that all of us (and I am not meaning just the swingers) already developed our ethics after reaching many sources of information besides the Bible (or whatever book applies to your religion), after knowing we have the ability to logically analyze this information and reach to our conclussions.

Religions today are no longer the same than what they were once, because we can choose what to buy from the arguments provided by those few guys who were able to write during the religion beginings, because we can explain some events at the light or new information those guys didn't had, and because our society is no longer the same than the society addressed by those guys.

alphaplaycpl · April 10, 2007

Thank you for this post! I have been wrestling with morals and swinging...more specifically:

I have no personal moral conflict with swinging, yet consider myself a pretty faithful Christian, gal. The dilemma - I have been having trouble with the fact that I could not reconcile a reasonable objection to swinging. In other words, I have been asking myself, "why not?" Coming up with no answer, having no problems with swinging, worried me. Was I questioning my belief structure at its very core?

Thanks to SpooMonkey, I have realized what has been said so many times before - defining "sin" must be individual. Which action is sin varies, personally. For example, as a swinger, with my husband's permission and encouragement having sex with another man (or woman) may not be sin. While it would, I think, most certainly sinful for the woman cheating on her husband behind his back. Same action, very different moral outcome.

For example, a glass of wine for the occasional drinker - no big deal. A glass of wine for a recovering alcoholic - much different. Same philosophy applies.

Thank you for giving me peace with a nagging conflict. Conflict resolved. I owe you all a big kiss!! (Especially Spoo...)

Thanks!

Mrs. Alpha

Zedd · April 3, 2008

I can't argue with that.

Playful1 · April 3, 2008

It depends on the persons morals. to me, it's fine, but I am not very traditional and don't believe in god.

I would take a guess that to a very religious person, or a very traditional person, it might not be.

Chris&Amelia · April 4, 2008

I personally believe in God. But I can't say I'm all that big on organized religions, which I tend to view as a scam to initially control the masses and then, later on, fleece them of their hard-earned money.

I've always lived my life by the philosophy of "Try not to harm anybody." I donate the charity, do volunteer work, etc. not because I feel I'm obligated, but because it helps people who need it.

I view myself as a good person. Now, I realize that this is a highly subjective viewpoint... some people I've arrested in my career would take umbrage with this. And even Hitler believed he wasn't evil.

So, is Swinging morally acceptable? I would say, yes, it is, as long as it is a voluntary choice made willingly by all parties who are aware of what they are getting into. I have no doubt that I love my wife. I would never do anything that would bring harm to her. But this is an activity that we partake together, that we enjoy together. Is there a possibility for harm? Yes. But that is true in any human activity. Using that yardstick to measure it is like saying "Is snowboarding morally acceptable*?".

God made us in such a way that sex is an enjoyable and pleasing activity. Why would exploring this aspect of our humanity be immoral?

(* - It's not)

intuition897 · April 4, 2008

My beliefs have leaned so far from my early teachings that I'm sure my Mom would have heart failure if she knew what I really believed and felt. But I believe that God is Truth and Love. If you seek these things, you find God. I believe that Jesus was the Son of God because the entire story is - from what I can see - the most perfect expression of what love really is. God is an artist, and existence is His canvas. The Salvation story is a life-changing inspiration in its perfection.

But I don't believe a lot of the paranoid crap that churches teach today. Like conventionality, conformity and blind faith. Jesus was a dyed in the wool shit disturber; I don't know how the cowards who worship Conformity can come to grips with just how vastly different their actions are from Jesus'. The whole thing seems to be, "Don't ask questions! Just read the book and apply the ready-made interpretation you learn in Sunday school. Keep your head down, don't think for yourself, and whatever you do, don't stand out from the crowd...That's not the Christian way!"

Just my personal opinion (soapbox), but I can't follow any god that I can improve upon, or worse, that I am superior to in any way. The things I believe must make sense or I just can't believe them. For example, it doesn't make sense that Jesus died a virgin. Mary Magdalene was just a friend...riiiiiight. So, you're telling me that Jesus came to earth to experience what it was to be human and he missed out on sex? On passionate love between the sexes?? Uh-huh. And I've got some ocean-front property in Arizona to sell you. Conceding that Jesus *gasp* might not have been a virgin when He died doesn't make him less God's Son for it. It's just part of the human experience. The only thing that might make think there was some credence to the virgin story is the fact that He was a very busy man and very dedicated to His mission here on earth. If a romantic relationship threatened to impede His mission - and He was unable to do justice by the relationship - I can see Him not allowing Himself the luxury. Just my theory.

Bottom line: I say live and let live. Everyone mind their own business and help out where you can. Whatever you do, just do it out of love for your fellow man.

Sign In

Please Visit Our Sponsors

Is swinging morally acceptable?

Recommended Posts

singleagain 26

Share this post

Link to post

BiloxiCouple 695

Share this post

Link to post

Tybee Swing 286

Share this post

Link to post

sereneiders 263

Share this post

Link to post

intuition897 2,179

Share this post

Link to post

FunCalifCple 17

Share this post

Link to post

Chicup 41

Share this post

Link to post

FunCalifCple 17

Share this post

Link to post

sereneiders 263

Share this post

Link to post

FunCalifCple 17

Share this post

Link to post

The Fuse 1,012

Share this post

Link to post

singleagain 26

Share this post

Link to post

Cpl2share 147

Share this post

Link to post

MoonLightKiss 28

Share this post

Link to post

warkman 31

Share this post

Link to post

intuition897 2,179

Share this post

Link to post

intuition897 2,179

Share this post

Link to post

Cpl2share 147

Share this post

Link to post

girlsnboys 15

Share this post

Link to post

cubnamy1995 124

Share this post

Link to post

cubnamy1995 124

Share this post

Link to post

cubnamy1995 124

Share this post

Link to post

Tybee Swing 286

Share this post

Link to post

singleagain 26

Share this post

Link to post

singleagain 26

Share this post

Link to post

intuition897 2,179