Are there many Christian swingers out there?

[ready_to_learn 15]

but I was wondering if there are many christian swingers out there. Since it basically goes against everything that the religion tells you but it's not like we all listen to all the rules all the time...

[interested-05 135]

having been raised in a conservative church, then going thru a divorce after 19 years, I had to a lot of reevaluating of myself,my religious beliefs, and life as a whole, Icame to the following view of religion and my faith. First I am still a believer in what Christ did, and his sacrifice for all of mankind.

After reconsidering the scriptures and the lives of the old testament patriarchs, they had no probelm with having sex with a number of people. David and Soloman had a number of wives,and concubines. Abraham was married to his sister Sarah, and he also gave her to the pharoah. Pharoah wasn't exactly happy with Abraham when he found out either. God didn't cut them out of the relationship for it either.

So yes I am a christian, I dont go to church, because I think it would be viewed as hypocritical by some to go to church and violate the rules, as the average person understands biblical teaching. That being saidscriptures teaches us to love God and love our neighbor, even as we love ourself. I try to treat others with respect, not lie to them to get laid, respect their relationship, and if they say no, then no it is. If there is a mutual desire to enjoy sex, I dont have a problem with it. primarily there is no predatory sex goin on, and take responsibility for you shared actions , and enjoy the shared pleasures..

[ownerspet 506]

As odd as it may sound, yes there are swingers who practice christianity. I don't really know much about it though.

[VegasLee 1,486]

You may also want to check out the LIBERATED CHRISTIANS Web site You may find it is not as against things as much as you think it is.

[Fun4UinBham 15]

My girlfriend and I are both Christians in every sense of the word, and altho we have not had a swinging experience together YET, we are playing with it, fantasizing about it, coming close and we both want it, and there's no doubt it's going to happen. Do we feel guilty? Yes. We are in church every Sunday that we are in town. Do I think it's wrong....in a way, yes. I think that just absolute random fornication, screwing anything and everything that moves, is not very right or healthy. I think that sharing intimacy with a close friend or friends is questionable but not as objectionable or just flat out wrong. The bigger question is this: Do I have to be perfect to please God? Does what I do in this area make me not acceptable to Him? Am I "working" my way out of Heaven? NO, NO and NO! I am acceptable only thru Jesus. I am Holy only thru what he did. I am NEVER going to make it on MY merit. That's what Christianity is: Putting my trust in what HE did, not in my imperfect record! I can't add anything to what Jesus did on that cross. If what He did there isn't good enough, then I've got no hope, and if it IS good enough, as I believe it is(what a WONDERFUL, FREE GIFT!!!), then there's nothing I can add to it or subtract from it. As for this lifestyle, I hope we meet another Christian couple that we can do EVERYTHING with, including going to church and worshipping God together, and thanking HIM for His Love and the Free Gift of eternal life! (see John 3:16-17 and Romans 6:23!!! I tell ya, it's exciting stuff!!!) Thanks for lettin' me share!

[Swing*8701 887]

Ed here-- Gee another person citing John 3:16 and I'm not even at a sporting event.

 

Ya know, I have yet to meet an Evangelical, Catholic, etc who has actually read the entire bible at least once. If you did, you'd realize what a mess it is and hardly the text to follow as an absolute. If it were, I'd get to praise Jesus as I sold my niece into slavery (Exodus 21-7).

 

The truth is, if you'd like to have sex, go have it. The concerns of a god certainly never held Solomon or David back. Why you ? Of course wanting to sugar coat that it's okay as long as the other couple is a Christian is a self serving conceit. But hey, we all want to play it safer when we are uncertain about what we're doing.

 

I'm an atheist and have had sex group sex with christian women. It never came up, but after having sex with the other wife, should I let her know that I don't believe in a god and should they stone me in a small ceremony ?

 

Yep, today I'm cranky.

 

[realcplub2 513]

Y'know Ed.. I am so glad that you put the link up there, from the West Wing

 

I was thinking the very same type of arguement when I scolled down to your post..

 

Now then, Ready to Learn..

 

I wont burden you with the many tales I can tell about born again christians, who spend all week engaged in all manner of UN CHRISTIAN activities, only to look down thier noses at others.. and because they get up Sunday ( albeit, hung over ) and get to church they are so much better

 

Seems to me, that the Son of God, put forth an IDEA.. let them without sin cast the first stone.. So the concept of looking down the noses at anyone really isnt following those teaching now is it..

 

The Bible has been twisted and changed so many times thru out history, that, in its current form, many of the original books, are all but gone..

 

Warren Moon, yes the football player, was also a religious man, and a ordained minister.. He, with his wealth, took the time to go to Israel and learn Ancient Hebrew, and then read the actual texts.. In one of his last interviews, he said point blank exactly that, the Bible he grew up knowing has little to do with the original texts.

 

Y'see, the KING JAMES bible, was written by KING JAMES.. in the middle ages.. as was usually the case, the KING decided what was in and what was OUT.. So between that and the Roman Catholic Church, And the Bible conventions... twisting it, for thier own benefit.

 

Now, I will tell you this, I am not an atheist, rather, my belief is, so long as no one gets hurt, and everyone involved WANTS to be involved.. Its fine.. Want to invoke the name of god.. Fine.. so long as its..

 

Oh God Im Cumming.. or something like that..

[readytoplay104 15]

hi we are main stream christians and we are swingers

[danjan 33]

We are Catholics and swingers. We believe strongly in our religion but don't feel that our sex life is a sin. As long as both partners remain honest with each other, commited to each other and true to themselves(hard to do I know) and all participating people are willing no sin is commited.

[Cajun2Step 65]

Yes....

We are Pedestrians and there is nothing in our scriptures that prevent us from swinging as we go from place to place.

[Playful1 434]

95% of the swingers I know count themselves as christian of one sort or another.

 

you want another contradiction? most of the swingers I know are also pretty hardcore conservatives...and support the folks who would put us all in jail for a very long time, lol.

 

No one said it makes sense. when you start trying to make it make sense, well, just save yourself the headache.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Yes we are Christians. We do go to church, not every Sunday though. We are also conservative, more Libertarian than Republican. As are many we have met in the lifestyle. I have been in some interesting political, philosophical and religious conversations with swingers too.

 

And Edison, I have read it cover to cover more than once, and I still claim to be no expert. It is a difficult read and takes effort to study. The problem is many Christians, and atheist, read into it what they want. Churches are infamous for creating their own rules that are not based on scripture. It is even mentioned in the Bible about the Laws of the Church not all being God's word. The trick for me is to read nothing into it that is not there. There are even Greek words describing reading into/out of the bible, to bad I can't remember them.

 

When I was younger I went to a church where we actually studied the scriptures in the original languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The pastor was a PhD in, among other things, biblical languages and he knew them well.

 

Most English translations are off to some degree, it varies by how far. Part of it has to do with early church politics and part has to do with the fact that sometimes there was not a straight forward translation.

 

It become pretty clear how difficult it is to translate into another languages meaning when it takes 60 minutes to explain the true meaning in a 10 word scripture because there are not straight word for word translations.

 

So I have no problem reconciling swinging with my beliefs. In the end it is about my relationship to Christ and that is pretty good shape.

[BiloxiCouple 695]

There are members of many faiths and cultures here.

 

Hang around long enough you will see.

 

Sex is a basic primal urge everyone has to deal with. Even those who practise (at the moment I can't think of the word, it's what the catholic clergy do, no sex).

 

I was going to rant on. (self)Important people getting caught with their pants down or their knees getting dirt on them:D I like the way you look up at me.

[WhatisTruth 41]

My wife and I are die-hard Jesus followers. We have been full-time volunteer urban missionaries, and have lived in community with Christians for the past couple of years. Now, I use the term Jesus Follower, because I believe the identity of "Christian" has taken on new meaning in today's culture. We are, simply, people who try to live like Jesus.

 

We are obviously very liberal, and believe in relative absolute truth. We not only go to a building for worship on Sundays, but also gather as the church throughout the week.

 

I have studied Christian sexuality pretty in depth, both formally and informally, and do not believe non-monogamy to be inherently wrong. That doesn't mean that its not wrong for some people, just like alcohol or McDonalds isn't wrong in and of themselves. I could go pretty in depth with the why and how here, but that isnt the topic being addressed.

 

Now, if you would excuse me its awefully late here and our bed is calling my name.

[PTTimeDC 120]

but I was wondering if there are many christian swingers out there. Since it basically goes against everything that the religion tells you but it's not like we all listen to all the rules all the time...

 

There's a famous book in which it's first recanting of stories and tales was written at least 80 years after a certain person died. Religion is man-made and manipulated by thousands of politicians of the day, has multiple versions and thousands of translations. Would you trust the politicians of today with telling you how to live your life and setting the rules for your "entrance" into heaven? So, yours is an impossible question to answer without narrowing it down which perspective of which version of this collection of ancient hand-me-down tales from which government translated it to the lessons and rules you are instructed to abide by today.

[WhatisTruth 41]

There's a famous book in which it's first recanting of stories and tales was written at least 80 years after a certain person died. Religion is man-made and manipulated by thousands of politicians of the day, has multiple versions and thousands of translations. Would you trust the politicians of today with telling you how to live your life and setting the rules for your "entrance" into heaven? So, yours is an impossible question to answer without narrowing it down which perspective of which version of this collection of ancient hand-me-down tales from which government translated it to the lessons and rules you are instructed to abide by today.

 

 

Good job staying on topic

[SueRic 17]

Okay, so a Christian, a Jew, and a couple of swingers are stranded on this island....

[two4youinswva 3,068]

Okay, so a Christian, a Jew, and a couple of swingers are stranded on this island....

 

Wait. Is that a total of four people or two people?

[celtic239 297]

I go to Church every week. Is "swinging" a sin (either through adultery or fornication) ya but that's why I say an act of contrition. I would much rather live in a world that had some moral codes that looked down upon theft, murder, lying...then a purely secular society that only punished those that got caught doing those acts. The later being that it is considered "wrong" and deserve punishment because you got caught.

[Playful1 434]

I go to Church every week. Is "swinging" a sin (either through adultery or fornication) ya but that's why I say an act of contrition. I would much rather live in a world that had some moral codes that looked down upon theft, murder, lying...then a purely secular society that only punished those that got caught doing those acts. The later being that it is considered "wrong" and deserve punishment because you got caught.

 

just had to add in here...you can have a moral code without being religious in any sense. I certainly am.

 

Also, isnt the point of doing acts of contrition to be truly sorry for what you did and to try not to do it again? Maybe i am confused.

[PB&J 1,086]

Yes....

We are Pedestrians and there is nothing in our scriptures that prevent us from swinging as we go from place to place.

 

? Pedestrians?

[Powerglide 235]

It's obviously impossible to predict what Jesus would say about swinging. Our society and culture are so radically different from anything he knew. But he seemed to by much more offended by hypocrisy than by sex. My guess is that his advise to swingers would simply be to treat everyone with very great kindness and compassion. And while I am not a Christian, that seems like good advise to me.

[lotsoffun201 175]

Ms. fun is a Christian. She was a worship leader, taught Sunday School, father is a church pastor, was a virgin when she got married and lived her entire life by the code of the church. Two husbands later who were also Christians (both of which were cheaters), one passed away and the other left for another woman.

 

When we met, I never hid my past and didn't wish to continue in the lifestyle although she was the one who expressed interest. She was always VERY sexual and in fact was taught by her mother that sex was an integral part of marriage and that NOTHING was out of bounds for the marriage bed. She had even been told in the past to leave church services several times because her attire was too inappropriate.

 

Our life together is kept to ourselves and her family and "church people" know nothing of our life together. WE are very conservative in the lifestyle and intend to keep it that way but completely enjoy ourselves and what we do. She feels it gives her the opportunity to express herself in ways that she always wanted to. We have an AMAZING sex life with each other, and going to clubs and parties is something we both really enjoy so long as our boundarys remain intact. She has discovered things about herself that she never knew existed in her and it has broadened her outlook.

 

She still goes to church, quotes bible verse, and has a far more positive outlook on life then she ever had. She was once told that she had to get "healed" in order to move forward. I'm pretty sure the church didn't mean she should use the lifestyle to get healed, but that's what did it!

[couplekayla 15]

we are Christians and we have been in the lifestyle off and on for the last 7 years. I do not have a problem with it but my wife is more sensitive to guilt.

[Guest rdy46227]

Check out Liberated Christian for several articles about sex, biblical teachings, and morality from a swinger's point of view.

 

(I thought there was another place this reference should go...)

[Chicup 41]

Since it basically goes against everything that the religion tells you...

 

I'm curious as to the depth of ones faith when you would commit acts which are contrary to it.

 

Now I don't mean this to be a 'deep thoughts' lesson, but if Swinging were indeed 'against everything that religion tells you', and you really believed in your religion, then really pursuing this path does not make sense.

 

Planning a sin and planning for contrition prior to even committing a sin would not be the sign of someone looking for true forgiveness.

 

5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

 

5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

 

5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

 

5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

 

5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

 

5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

 

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

Not to be a Debby Downer but it really does not get more clear cut than that. Lets face it, Swinging is far more Pagan Roman, than Christian Roman.

 

Now I realize that many people go to great lengths to justify their 'sins' as somehow not sins. Dating my wife early I asked her the same question, 'If you really believe, then why are we having sex etc.' and the answer of course, though at the time she didn't realize it, was that she did not really believe.

 

Now I think the problems lies not with swinging, but how committed people really are to their claims. I know if I really believed in the lake of fire, or any other depiction of hell, I'd not be much worried about who wasn't wearing panties to the next swing party.

[WhatisTruth 41]

Personally, I don't understand how anybody can justify acting against their conscious.

 

Not to be a Debby Downer but it really does not get more clear cut than that. Lets face it, Swinging is far more Pagan Roman, than Christian Roman.

 

I will ignore the absurdity of telling somebody who ascribes to another religion how to practice their faith or interpret their text, and will address the topic at hand.

 

I have had formal education on the Bible and hermeneutics. I was trained by some of the nations leading professors and scholars. My wife and I have both been full-time urban missionaries (although, probably not the type your thinking of). I have also participated in many discussion based around this and similar topics. What has been the conclusion after several years of study and discourse? There isn't one. The verdict is still very much out and I am still learning/talking to this day.

 

To break it down very basically, contrary to popular belief and practice, the Bible is NOT a book of rules to be followed (well, not anymore at least). This legalistic approach to faith leads only into a vicious downward spiral. Instead of reading the Bible like the Bill of Rights, read it like a narrative. A story that in the end teaches about relationships - relations with God, relations with others, and relations with ourselves.

 

If anybody would like to get into the nitty gritty details of it all, this really isn't the place. You can, however, feel free to PM me and I will invite you into current or future conversations that take place on the interwebz. Until then, I rather be discussing how great of an ass your wife has or the newest fantastic sex toy.

[fun4Ds 1,098]

I don't think this is being fair, Chicup. These texts being singled out like this, from ACTS. For one, Paul was speaking about "Lawsuits" at this time. But like many of Paul's writings he speaks of his own feelings/insperation, Not as the Word of God from God. Paul, says so himself, a few times.

 

Choosing a few passages rather than accepting the gospel as a whole, with understanding, would be like me picking up a bible and pointing out : Judas went and hanged himself on one page, then flipping to another and finding a scripture quoting, Go ye and do the same. The good book doesn't work like that...

 

One should start with Genesis not Paul's letters, in my opinion. But like Paul, we're speaking of our own interpretation, right....

[fun4Ds 1,098]

still learning/talking to this day.

Me too

 

To break it down very basically, contrary to popular belief and practice, the Bible is NOT a book of rules to be followed (well, not anymore at least).

Now thats interesting

 

 

 

If anybody would like to get into the nitty gritty details of it all, this really isn't the place.

Julie has said to more than one, if there is enough discussion so shall there be an on-going forum.

 

Keep in mind, all shall be allowed their opinion and the rights to speak and be heard. I think that scared off the few who have tried...

 

fun4ds

[WhatisTruth 41]

Keep in mind, all shall be allowed their opinion and the rights to speak and be heard. I think that scared off the few who have tried...

 

fun4ds

 

I have been under the impression that religon/politic are to be stayed away from. Or at the very least walked very lightly on. If this is not the case then I withdraw my statement.

[fun4Ds 1,098]

Religious discussions are always permitted. However, Political discussions are not allowed.

 

I think the former can be done without the latter in a public, lifestyle discussion forum.

 

Just be forewarned about the latter....

[Guest rdy46227]

And the winner is . . .

{drum roll}

Pauline Christianity!

 

There were/are several other major Christian sects, such as the Coptics, and Gnostics, Essene/John the Baptist, and even (the original Apostle) Peter's. For the first couple of hundred years, great battles raged between one sect or another. Pauline won mostly because it was predominate in Asia Minor, the capital of the Roman Empire, when Constantine decided a unified religion would be good statesmanship.

 

An interesting place to start is the study made of the historical Jesus by The Jesus Seminar. This group of recognized scholars (as in PhD in Divinity or History) had only in common the idea of doing historical criticism of the documents that espouse the words and acts of Jesus.

 

Learned papers were written and presented, discussions held, and votes taken on the possibility/probability that the historical person we identify as Jesus of Nazareth did indeed say or do as was written.

 

The results were published as a new translation of The Five Gospels (including the Gospel of Thomas) and The Acts of Jesus. Colors were assigned to each phrase attributed to Jesus: red if he probably said or did it, pink if he could have, gray if he probably didn't, and black if he certainly didn't. There was little red, and not much more pink.

 

(The little book The Gospel of Jesus: according to the Jesus Seminar is the extracted result of the red and pink, a little of the gray, and narrative as needed to connect it all up under subject headings.)

 

Bottom line is a "love your neighbor" message, rejection of narrow Jewish law, almost no "thou shall not"s, and lots of parables to illustrate.

[Alura 2,774]

The Five Gospels[/url] (including the Gospel of Thomas)...

 

Did they say why they omitted the Gospel of Mary Magdelene which, I understand, was recovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls?

 

BTW, Chicup, my son, a Latin minor, tells me the Romans had very restrictive rules regarding the sexual behavior of women, which would have ruled out swinging for married women. The men had no such restrictions as long as they played with women who weren't married (read "prostitutes" here).

 

Alura

[Guest rdy46227]

The Gospel of Mary was "found" in 1896 (purchased in Cairo) with additional fragments in Greek (1983, 1983). The Jesus Seminar considered including it, but it was voted entirely black.

 

It is not technically classed as a gospel by scholastic consensus, don't ask me why.

 

It is fragmentary, missing six manuscript pages at the beginning of the document and four manuscript pages in the middle.

 

It begins with Jesus engaged in dialogue with his disciples, answering their questions on the nature of matter and the nature of sin. He leaves, and Mary answers questions and relates a vision she had. Some disciples don't like the idea that Mary has more information than they do. (I'm working form memory here, there may also be the "empty tomb" story too.)

 

Karen L. King seems to have written the definitive book so far, but several have put forth contrasting ideas about it.

[Alura 2,774]

The Gospel of Mary was "found" in 1896 (purchased in Cairo) with additional fragments in Greek (1983, 1983). The Jesus Seminar considered including it, but it was voted entirely black.

 

It is not technically classed as a gospel by scholastic consensus, don't ask me why.

 

It is fragmentary, missing six manuscript pages at the beginning of the document and four manuscript pages in the middle.

 

It begins with Jesus engaged in dialogue with his disciples, answering their questions on the nature of matter and the nature of sin. He leaves, and Mary answers questions and relates a vision she had. Some disciples don't like the idea that Mary has more information than they do. (I'm working form memory here, there may also be the "empty tomb" story too.)

 

Karen L. King seems to have written the definitive book so far, but several have put forth contrasting ideas about it.

 

How interesting, Rdy! I must read Ms. King's book! Thanks for the tip!

 

What does it mean:

 

... it was voted entirely black...

 

... the "empty tomb" story...

 

?

Alura

[Chicup 41]

Just had dinner, listening to Ramstein, and mentally debating on the merits of a swinger cruise, a perfect mindset for a religious discussion.

 

I fully expect to offend and annoy in this discussion, because thats what happens when religion is discussed unless you take the position of 'everyone is correct'. Being the confusion religion causes over swinging, I think its a worthy subject though.

 

I don't think this is being fair, Chicup. These texts being singled out like this, from ACTS. For one, Paul was speaking about "Lawsuits" at this time. But like many of Paul's writings he speaks of his own feelings/insperation, Not as the Word of God from God. Paul, says so himself, a few times.

 

Choosing a few passages rather than accepting the gospel as a whole, with understanding, would be like me picking up a bible and pointing out : Judas went and hanged himself on one page, then flipping to another and finding a scripture quoting, Go ye and do the same. The good book doesn't work like that...

 

One should start with Genesis not Paul's letters, in my opinion. But like Paul, we're speaking of our own interpretation, right....

 

While I agree its opinion, it was opinion that was strong enough to be considered part of the bible. Now I am taking this from the point of view of a non-believer, which I have been since before my age hit double digits. Now I had a good formal Catholic education, and I'm more well versed in the bible than most Christians, so its not like this is unknown to me. What I do see this as though is a psychological dilemma. We have an activity which doesn't feel sinful, some people really want to do, and it makes them happy, vrs a book which tells you no. Rather than not do what makes you happy, or reject the book outright, people play lawyer with the book looking for definitions of 'is' and the like, so they can mentally feel happy in their activity while not going to an uncomfortable place confronting their views of religion.

 

I will ignore the absurdity of telling somebody who ascribes to another religion how to practice their faith or interpret their text, and will address the topic at hand.

 

Eh?

 

I have had formal education on the Bible and hermeneutics. I was trained by some of the nations leading professors and scholars. My wife and I have both been full-time urban missionaries (although, probably not the type your thinking of). I have also participated in many discussion based around this and similar topics. What has been the conclusion after several years of study and discourse? There isn't one. The verdict is still very much out and I am still learning/talking to this day.

 

To break it down very basically, contrary to popular belief and practice, the Bible is NOT a book of rules to be followed (well, not anymore at least). This legalistic approach to faith leads only into a vicious downward spiral. Instead of reading the Bible like the Bill of Rights, read it like a narrative. A story that in the end teaches about relationships - relations with God, relations with others, and relations with ourselves.

 

I know a good many Christians who would say thats an expressway to hell. I'd say you are breaking the bible down into basically 'the golden rule', when it comes to behavior which sounds good to me, but I think thats just wishful thinking attempting to merge modern sensibilities around a ancient manuscript. Keeping it literal shows the holes, so you just make it a story book showing you Christian like behavior, but not the ONLY behavior.

[slevin 1,374]

To break it down very basically, contrary to popular belief and practice, the Bible is NOT a book of rules to be followed (well, not anymore at least). This legalistic approach to faith leads only into a vicious downward spiral. Instead of reading the Bible like the Bill of Rights, read it like a narrative. A story that in the end teaches about relationships - relations with God, relations with others, and relations with ourselves.

 

I have no formal education in theology and don't consider myself overly knowledgeable on the subject. Is your interpretation stated above one of academic theologists? My question is really whether someone from the church would ascribe to that. Would the Pope view the bible this way? Would my priest or minister?

 

Since this is the internet and my tone isn't present I will make it clear that these are honest questions from an inquisitive place.

 

S.

[willyoats 324]

My wife was seduced by a Presbyterian minister at church camp when she was a teenager. I was molested by a priest when I was about 13. After we started swinging, one of our friends in the community was a Christian preacher whose specific affiliation I do not remember.

 

Bottom line, it's irrelevant what a person's religion is. They might be just as perverted as anyone else. Or, they might just like random, noncommital sex and not see that their religion has anything meanigful to say about the hobby. Several of our swinging partners are, or certainly seem to be, deeply religious. They are not hypocrites. It's just that religion and sex are not intertwined for them.

 

We are Confucian-style Humanists: Our (Confucian) responsibility is to take care of our family and our community. At the same time, our behavior is not swayed by any creation myths, gods, hells, heavens, or other fantasmagoria that may comfort more religious folks.

[intuition897 2,179]

Hi everyone. Feeling all warm and fuzzy being back for a visit.

 

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians; they are so unlike your Christ." ~Mahatma Ghandi

 

I have decided that I am an "ecclectic Christian", which means that I've pretty much thrown out anything that doesn't hold water. In other words, I have discarded any horseshit notions or teachings that can't stand on their own merit. For example, Mr. intuition and I have proven that a healthy marriage does not depend on monogamy...so what's the problem?? I can't bring myself to worship a god that I can improve upon or be better than in some way. I was given a logical, analytical mind and I refuse to believe that that is a liability rather than the asset I know it is. What god is going to create something good and then tell me it's evil - without any plausible explanation! - and then tell me that I'm going to be punished for being the way I was designed?? Sorry. That does not make sense to me.

 

God existed before the bible. Before the bible came into existence, all we had to go by was our own inner compass. So I'm not really interested in who can out-quote whom. The bible is definitely full of truths...as long as you don't mind picking the gems out of the matrix, and admitting its limitations. Truth is everywhere; if you limit yourself to a single volume you deny yourself a whole world of potential enlightenment.

 

I still say I'm Christian because, although I'm still trying to sort out what's real/right/true and what's bullshit, the Jesus I have come to know is worth emulating in every way. I'll bet He was a lot more approachable and earthy than we've been led to believe.

 

But anyway, if you're interested in books of the bible, I particularly like Romans 14. It discusses food, but our appetites for food and sex have many parallels.

[Guest rdy46227]

How interesting, Rdy! I must read Ms. King's book! Thanks for the tip!

 

What does it mean:

 

... it was voted entirely black...

 

... the "empty tomb" story...

 

?

Alura

 

Voted black -- Rejected as "made up" material.

 

Seminar members voted to assigned 1 of 4 colors to each of Jesus's sayings or actions. From the introductory materials to the book,

• Red -- Jesus undoubtedly said/did this or something very like it.
  
• Pink -- Jesus probably said/did something like this.
  
• Gray -- Jesus didn't say/do this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.
  
• Black -- Jesus did not say/do this, it represents perspective or content of a later or different sect.
  

Just about everything available purporting to be part of the Jesus story was considered for examination. Other than the 5 Gospels, everything else was thought to be all historical fiction.

 

"Empty tomb" story. Just after the resurrection, the women go to the tomb, find it empty, and report back to the other disciples.

[Guest rdy46227]

To break it down very basically, contrary to popular belief and practice, the Bible is NOT a book of rules to be followed (well, not anymore at least). This legalistic approach to faith leads only into a vicious downward spiral. Instead of reading the Bible like the Bill of Rights, read it like a narrative. A story that in the end teaches about relationships - relations with God, relations with others, and relations with ourselves.

I have no formal education in theology and don't consider myself overly knowledgeable on the subject. Is your interpretation stated above one of academic theologists? My question is really whether someone from the church would ascribe to that. Would the Pope view the bible this way? Would my priest or minister?

 

Since this is the internet and my tone isn't present I will make it clear that these are honest questions from an inquisitive place.

 

S.

 

This view is that of very liberal Christians, we're talking far left, but not quite off the scale. Some well known people in the mainstream sects, like Episcopal Bishop Shelby Spong, and Roman Catholic John Dominic Crossan fall close to, if not into, this camp.

 

However, I know of no formal sect that has totally abandoned the "thou shalt not"s of the Bible, though there certainly must be a few. Unitarians and Universalists come close.

 

You can also come at this from the meta-physical/psychic direction, where people speak of "All-That-Is" for what we call God, and the "Christ Consciousness" is somewhat like the Holy Spirit.

 

"A Course in Miracles" (channeled material) started a cascade of people and books that focus on loving actions and connection to the Christ Consciousness to give direction to one's actions, as opposed to following a legal/moral code of rights and wrongs.

 

Needless to say, Fundamentalists, Mainstream denominations, and the Pope read the New Testament as pretty much black and white. Progressives may emphasis the spirit of the law, not the letter, but the law is still the law.

 

I also strongly suspect that many, many who agree with this view have retired from their formal religion, and thus aren't members of any sect. (They may go to church to be social, but they no longer believe many of their church's teachings.)

[WhatisTruth 41]

What I do see this as though is a psychological dilemma. We have an activity which doesn't feel sinful, some people really want to do, and it makes them happy, vrs a book which tells you no. Rather than not do what makes you happy, or reject the book outright, people play lawyer with the book looking for definitions of 'is' and the like, so they can mentally feel happy in their activity while not going to an uncomfortable place confronting their views of religion

 

That is merely your interpretation Chicup. Well, most likely somebody else's interpretation that was taught and indoctrinated into you as a child. Just because somebody interprets the Bible a specific way doesn't mean they are right-myself included. What I love the most is when people who are not Christians, try and tell Christians how to be a Christian. I do not tell Jews how to be Jews, nor do I tell Atheists such as yourself how to be an atheist.

 

I have had formal education on the Bible and hermeneutics. I was trained by some of the nations leading professors and scholars. My wife and I have both been full-time urban missionaries (although, probably not the type your thinking of). I have also participated in many discussion based around this and similar topics. What has been the conclusion after several years of study and discourse? There isn't one. The verdict is still very much out and I am still learning/talking to this day.

 

To break it down very basically, contrary to popular belief and practice, the Bible is NOT a book of rules to be followed (well, not anymore at least). This legalistic approach to faith leads only into a vicious downward spiral. Instead of reading the Bible like the Bill of Rights, read it like a narrative. A story that in the end teaches about relationships - relations with God, relations with others, and relations with ourselves.

 

I know a good many Christians who would say thats an expressway to hell. I'd say you are breaking the bible down into basically 'the golden rule', when it comes to behavior which sounds good to me, but I think thats just wishful thinking attempting to merge modern sensibilities around a ancient manuscript. Keeping it literal shows the holes, so you just make it a story book showing you Christian like behavior, but not the ONLY behavior.

 

Yes, I know a good many of Christians who would agree, but as you have already pointed out, most Christians don't know much about their faith or the Bible. There is a reason why for thousands of years priests were the only ones were able to read the Bible. It's because they were highly trained and educated in how to do so. They devoted their entire lives on the matter. Today, we have backyard scholars and frontporch clergy who don't have the skills nor education necessary to properly fulfill those roles. There is a large history lesson here in why the Church has been shattered and splintered since the protestant reformation. Another lesson for another time.

 

As far as the literalness of the Bible goes, you cannot interpret the entire thing literally. Quit being a scientist. Some parts of the Bible are indeed literal, some are factual, some are symbolic, and some are even direct lies purposefully placed to teach truth. ("artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up"-V). So I attempt to read things the way they were meant to be read by the original audience. But this is where you start to get into hermeneutics. Unfortunately, according to you hermeneutics only purpose is to help someone be a lawyer and "feel happy in their activity while not going to an uncomfortable place confronting their views of religion."

 

I have no formal education in theology and don't consider myself overly knowledgeable on the subject. Is your interpretation stated above one of academic theologists? My question is really whether someone from the church would ascribe to that. Would the Pope view the bible this way? Would my priest or minister?

 

Since this is the internet and my tone isn't present I will make it clear that these are honest questions from an inquisitive place.

 

First, thank you VERY much for clearly stating your intent. One of my pet peeves is that technology takes away all visual and auditory cues while communicating. No tone, eye contact, body language or anything! So thank you

 

Now to answer your question, it varies greatly. There are two main factors though, how MUCH a person has been educated, and WHERE they were educated (seminary). Most people in academia would try to flesh out exactly what I mean by that, as it is a bit more vague and basic than they are use to. I would assume (perhaps wrongly) that the majority of people within academia would agree with broad interpretation.

 

Almost any Pope would almost definitely view the Bible this way. As well as any person in the Vatican.

 

Individual preachers and clergyman? That again depends on where they went to seminary and if they continue their education. I had one pastor who knew very little about hermeneutics, but she did very good things for the community. I had another pastor, who would eventually become my mentor, who's academic skills far exceed my own. It just so happened this particular pastor's social circle included people with GREAT eduction (princeton, Oxford, etc). The position of pastor/priest/clergy requires a diverse set of skills. A strong hermeneutic skills set is just one of them. Unfortunately, most clergy do not have the training they need in this area. I mean, you can become ordained online these days, in an incredibly short amount of time to boot.

 

Personally, I come from a moderate school of interpretation. My academic influences include Oxford, Princeton, Fuller, and Baylor.

[WhatisTruth 41]

I just realized that my last post made me portray most clergy pretty negatively. This is not my intent. I have seen MANY clergy do great work who who weren't strong academically. Its a "body of Christ" thing.

[Alura 2,774]

Voted black -- Rejected as "made up" material.

 

Seminar members voted to assigned 1 of 4 colors to each of Jesus's sayings or actions. From the introductory materials to the book,

• Red -- Jesus undoubtedly said/did this or something very like it.
  
• Pink -- Jesus probably said/did something like this.
  
• Gray -- Jesus didn't say/do this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.
  
• Black -- Jesus did not say/do this, it represents perspective or content of a later or different sect.
  

Just about everything available purporting to be part of the Jesus story was considered for examination. Other than the 5 Gospels, everything else was thought to be all historical fiction.

 

"Empty tomb" story. Just after the resurrection, the women go to the tomb, find it empty, and report back to the other disciples.

 

Thanks, Rdy!

 

I should have realized what the "empty tomb story" was but, at the moment, was wondering whether it might have to do with the tomb that was found in Israel some time back which was being studied when the Israeli government decided that it should not be and ordered the scientists out before resealing it.

 

The scientists claimed to have found sarcophagi (they used another term, which escapes me now) that they believed was Jesus', Mary Magdelene's, (beside each other as husbands and wives would have been) Jesus' parents' and brother's. There was also one which they believed was a son born to Jesus and Mary Magdelene. They were planning to do DNA studies on the remains they had found when the investigation was abruptly ended. I saw this on the History Channel, if I remember correctly, a couple of years ago.

 

You're adding excellent knowledge to this thread. Thank you!

 

Alura

[Chicup 41]

Thanks, Rdy!

 

I should have realized what the "empty tomb story" was but, at the moment, was wondering whether it might have to do with the tomb that was found in Israel some time back which was being studied when the Israeli government decided that it should not be and ordered the scientists out before resealing it.

 

The scientists claimed to have found sarcophagi (they used another term, which escapes me now) that they believed was Jesus', Mary Magdelene's, (beside each other as husbands and wives would have been) Jesus' parents' and brother's. There was also one which they believed was a son born to Jesus and Mary Magdelene. They were planning to do DNA studies on the remains they had found when the investigation was abruptly ended. I saw this on the History Channel, if I remember correctly, a couple of years ago.

 

You're adding excellent knowledge to this thread. Thank you!

 

Alura

 

Sadly the History Channel is AWFUL about these things currently. They gave up on real history years ago and have even run propaganda pieces as 'history' without commentary. I used to really like the channel but they are just simply not to be trusted with anything even remotely controversial. I really just 'gave up' when they presented the 'aliens built the pyramids etc' theory without even the slightest criticism or skeptical side presented.

 

A DNA analysis would do nothing to prove/disprove anything here as no one has Jesus's known DNA. At best they could say it was a family from the area he lived and that narrows it down to a few million people.

 

They did find a ossuaries which had the name Joseph on it, but thats hardly proof of anything. Ossuarie was the word you were looking for and it mean 'bone box' in which bones would be collected after a year of decomposition and put in the box.

 

Without getting too detailed due to time, its basically bad archeology and press seeking discoverers who got this idea started, especially because they could make it fit nicely with the DeVinci code which was quite popular at the time.

 

The problem is that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were not exactly uncommon names.

 

Archaeologists found 10 ossuaries, bones included, in the underground central chamber and six niches, said archaeologist Zvi Greenhut of the Antiquities Authority.

Greenhut said the combination of the names Jesus, Mary and Joseph on the ossuaries did not prompt archaeologists at the time to probe further. ''The names are common names. There is nothing unique in the appearance of all names together,'' Greenhut said.

He said that among the about 1,000 ossuaries from biblical times unearthed in

Jerusalem, six carry the inscription ''Yeshua,'' or Jesus. Of those, two are engraved with the words ''Jesus, son of Joseph.''

He said about 25 percent of the women's caskets bore some form of the name

Mary and that Joseph was the second most common man's name of the period.

 

Archeologists say that one in every four women during the 1st century was named Mary, and at least one other ossuary recovered from the period was labeled Jesus son of Joseph.

 

That was from 1996 before this got a bit 'conspiratory'.

[WhatisTruth 41]

Sadly the History Channel is AWFUL about these things currently. They gave up on real history years ago and have even run propaganda pieces as 'history' without commentary. I used to really like the channel but they are just simply not to be trusted with anything even remotely controversial. I really just 'gave up' when they presented the 'aliens built the pyramids etc' theory without even the slightest criticism or skeptical side presented.

 

A DNA analysis would do nothing to prove/disprove anything here as no one has Jesus's known DNA. At best they could say it was a family from the area he lived and that narrows it down to a few million people.

 

They did find a ossuaries which had the name Joseph on it, but thats hardly proof of anything. Ossuarie was the word you were looking for and it mean 'bone box' in which bones would be collected after a year of decomposition and put in the box.

 

Without getting too detailed due to time, its basically bad archeology and press seeking discoverers who got this idea started, especially because they could make it fit nicely with the DeVinci code which was quite popular at the time.

 

The problem is that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were not exactly uncommon names.

 

 

 

 

 

That was from 1996 before this got a bit 'conspiratory'.

 

Great post chicup! I concur with everything you stated here.

[fun4Ds 1,098]

A DNA analysis would do nothing to prove/disprove anything here as no one has Jesus's known DNA.

What about the purple robe covered eventually, in blood. (its was a very bloody scene according to the many witness's) They did obviously value these things, as they cast lots to get the pieces. The crown of thorns, the spear that pierced his side looks like a pretty important piece of evidence also, covered in DNA. Can you tell me you have proof they were thrown in a dumpster, much less when or where, according to your extended research ? Maybe that sounds ridiculous to some who cant believe, but just maybe, they have been kept in secrete places from those who would destroy the evidence. There are many reasons to keep secrets....

 

Without getting too detailed due to time, its basically bad archeology and press seeking discoverers who got this idea started, especially because they could make it fit nicely with the DeVinci code which was quite popular at the time.

Had a guy tell me once, the smarter a man thinks he is, the easier he is to deceive. He could have been lying to me though....

 

The problem is that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were not exactly uncommon names.

And that could be an advantage as well, to the right people today.

[Alura 2,774]

Fun 4Ds wrote: "Had a guy tell me once, the smarter a man thinks he is, the easier he is to deceive. He could have been lying to me though...."

 

This gave me a real belly-laugh, Mr. Fun! Thanks!

 

Alura

[fun4Ds 1,098]

Fun 4Ds wrote: "Had a guy tell me once, the smarter a man thinks he is, the easier he is to deceive. He could have been lying to me though...."

 

This gave me a real belly-laugh, Mr. Fun! Thanks!

 

Alura

 

He was laughing also, as he took my money

 

But I can laugh about it today

[WhatisTruth 41]

This view is that of very liberal Christians, we're talking far left, but not quite off the scale. Some well known people in the mainstream sects, like Episcopal Bishop Shelby Spong, and Roman Catholic John Dominic Crossan fall close to, if not into, this camp.

 

However, I know of no formal sect that has totally abandoned the "thou shalt not"s of the Bible, though there certainly must be a few. Unitarians and Universalists come close.

 

You can also come at this from the meta-physical/psychic direction, where people speak of "All-That-Is" for what we call God, and the "Christ Consciousness" is somewhat like the Holy Spirit.

 

"A Course in Miracles" (channeled material) started a cascade of people and books that focus on loving actions and connection to the Christ Consciousness to give direction to one's actions, as opposed to following a legal/moral code of rights and wrongs.

 

Needless to say, Fundamentalists, Mainstream denominations, and the Pope read the New Testament as pretty much black and white. Progressives may emphasis the spirit of the law, not the letter, but the law is still the law.

 

I also strongly suspect that many, many who agree with this view have retired from their formal religion, and thus aren't members of any sect. (They may go to church to be social, but they no longer believe many of their church's teachings.)

 

I have to strongly disagree with you. My summary isn't one that completely dismissed rules and/or laws. What I offered was a different way to read the Bible. Jesus understood this, and which is why He didn't hesitate to BREAK the law in multiple circumstances. The rules and laws were meant to help us keep a healthy relationship with God/People.

 

I would venture to say that staunch fundamentalists only see the Bible as black and white, but usually they dont really feel that way if you sit down and have a conversation with them. At least, that has been my experience.