Christian Swingers

[Guest just4fun986532]

I saw there were a couple questions addressing christians and if they swing. My husband and I r christians and we enjoy swinging....we have thought it through in depth before actually acting on it but we feel that there r many stories in the bible of a man taking his wifes concubine or servant to sleep with and that was ok back then...also the whole thing about having sex b4 ur married I believe was a sin back then because it would have been breaking the law and a person could get stoned/killed for that. And as far as adultry goes, we both agree on this so it's a part of our marriage together as a whole; also if God didn't want us to enjoy it, it wouldn't be so enjoyable, i don't believe and the whole point of the clitoris is pleasure. So that's our view point on christian swinging

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

to the board!

 

Feel free to jump into the other discussions and share your thoughts, we'd love to get to know you better.

[exploringRM 305]

amen

[sweet_tna 680]

Hi, and thanks for the insightful introduction.

 

Welcome aboard, and feel fee to hang around awhile longer and post away.

 

=)

[lotsoffun201 175]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Just my point of view

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Welcome to the boards!

 

There are those, both in and outside the LS, that believe being Christian and a swinger is incompatible. And those that believe it not an issue. Be belong to the latter group.

 

When I was younger I went to a church that was a doctrinal studies church, meaning it was less about sermons and more about studying the text of the Bible, the historical and political aspects that surrounded the translations and more. Our pastor had masters or PhD's in theology as well as Hebrew, Latin and a couple other languages.

 

It is pretty enlightening when you break down the actual text of the Bible in its original languages. English translations miss a good deal of meaning and in some cases actually change meaning.

 

In short I will say this, as a Christian I believe we live in a state of grace, not law. I have a relationship with God and I am comfortable with what we are doing.

 

Nice to have you around.

[bbarnsworth 2,636]

Each person's theological answers about swinging are their own. It's part of the journey of understanding. For me, the biggest obstacle to getting into swinging was the theological perspective. I did quite a bit of research into this, and found answers much as has been described above. I didn't cherry pick, trying to find the answer I 'wanted'. The truth I found works for me. It might not work for everyone, and there are many who would find great fault with me for reaching the conclusion that I did. So be it. I can't be responsible for the opinions of others. I know where I stand, I know where my wife stands, and neither of our stances precludes swinging.

[celtic239 297]

My wife and I consider ourselves "good" but not "great" Catholics. We both go to Mass, we both now work in jobs helping those that can't help themselves, we give to the poor and do other charitable work. When we had our first swinging experience there was ABSOLUTELY so sense of guilt. None. I still remember the first and last time I stole a pack of gum when I was 7 years old (on a dare from my friends) and have more guilt about that then swinging.

[fun4Ds 1,098]

just4fun986532 said:

I don't believe and the whole point of the clitoris is pleasure. So that's our view point on christian swinging

 

I have to comment as you've given your thoughts on Christianity, and I do agree. However, my Faith comes from a vast majority of religions (never turn down a good conversation with an atheist either) but most of all, my Faith comes through a personal relationship with God.

 

That being said, could you complete your registration by the link provided in the e mail sent to your address you provided, to continue posting here ?

 

I would like to know what you meant by the comment highlighted in this post. Could you elaborate a little more on this?

[Powerglide 235]

Fascinating new book: "Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire" by Jennifer Wrigtht Knust. The upshot is that there is simply no consistent sexual ethic or view of marriage presented in the Bible.

[Trazom 35]

What a great thread of discussion. I have an answer in my head but need to take some time to put it down.

[here4thefun69 16]

Just my opinion, take for what it is worth lol.

 

I being of a very biblical education have come to one conclusion over the past few years, that God is beyond our understanding, try as we might.

 

He is bigger than us and smaller too. He has been said to be omnipresent, omnipotent in us all and around us all. How then can anyone man, church organization, religion, atheist or agnostic define God and whats right or wrong. I have done huge studies on Bibliography and anyone who is honest with themselves will admit that the bible has been rewritten so many times (no matter what version you have) that its impossible to say that it is a standard by which we must conform to.

 

On top of that the books that are most widely included as canon of scripture (the books selected to be included in the bible) were deemed fit by men who were not even the ones who wrote the books. Going back further to the Torah and the old testament scrolls. These were said to have been destroyed during the Babylonian empire's rule, Then rewritten.

 

I am not telling you to not believe the bible or take what it says as important. But I am saying that in all thy getting get understanding. Proverbs chapter 4 I think. lol. So you shouldn't believe something or base a firm opinion on something based on word of mouth, something you read or even what has been passed down to you. Opinions should be based by a method of using The scientific method. Must be provable, observable, create a hypothesis and perform experiment to prove your hypothesis true or false.

[HappyCpl 89]

Mr. H speaking for Mr. H ONLY....

 

I find swinging to be incompatible with what is taught in most churches today. I go into this with my eyes open, perfectly aware that my Creator probably doesn't approve of my behavior, and I will answer for it some day. My faith in my God doesn't jibe with most churches, either, so I am not worried.

 

That said, Mrs. H and I have run into more than a few Sunday School teachers, choir members, and other assorted church members at our local club in the last few years(and now that I think about it, there are several members of a church we used to attend that make my antenna go up..).

 

I say that if this is what floats your boat, then why not do it? No need to rationalize it to anyone.

[WhatisTruth 41]

Opinions should be based by a method of using The scientific method. Must be provable, observable, create a hypothesis and perform experiment to prove your hypothesis true or false.

 

I must humbly disagree with you on this specific point. Not all things that are true or represent reality are quantifiable. Something does not have to be tested, measured, or observed for it to be able to exist. Our very ability to measure and observe things as humans is limited to the point of time in our scientific development. The tools and measures we have now would not even be imagined 50 years, just lifetime away, let alone the wonders of a few centuries.

 

Not only this, but the scientific method is limited and finite. A creation of finite beings. Therefor, it is incapable of measuring elements of an infinite nature. It even has difficulty measuring qualitative elements....

 

I contest, on the other hand, that opinions should be critical and well-thought out. They should be compared to other sources of truth and knowing, whether that be a law of physics or the opinion of a respected expert like a Doctor. But even then a well-informed and well-researched opinion is possible or even likely to be wrong. After all, we are mere finite humans.

 

I have posted on the subject of Christianity enough on on this board to let the rest of the thread pass...

[swing.kidz 367]

Not all things that are true or represent reality are quantifiable.

 

I know this is a swinger's board, I know we should be discussing great sex...but when a thread called "Christian Swingers" comes up, there's bound to be controversy!

 

So, sorry, I have to bite. How do you, WhatisTruth, quantify your above statement? Sure, there maybe a 'relative' reality we all individually possess and in that it's ok to use faith and subjectively qualitative statements. But on the general idea of reality, something we can all agree on, it MUST be quantifiable, it MUST be observable, it MUST be testable. If it's not, we become dogmatic, prejudice, discriminatory and closed minded.

 

That is the thing about the scientific method...it allows for dynamic understanding of our reality by building upon concepts preceding and testing new data...that is NOT a downside of the method, rather that is its strongest attribute (something all religions lack)! And even though we are mere individual humans, greatly susceptible to error, as a whole we do damn well to eradicate those errors and continue to build on the general consensus of reality by using the standards set by scientific methodologies (well, we have done damn well over the last half century anyway...I guess that's not the greatest track record).

 

So, in defense of here4thefun69, I think that is what he/she was attempting to say (although this rabbit trail is irrelevant to the original post). That there is no observable truth for Christianity, that its RIGID 'truth' has flaws, that its history is filled with the very human error you have acknowledged. With that, we should base our general realities in what we can test. However if we should so choose, we can also direct our individual reality to accept whatever we want, and we should be allowed to do so.

 

Back to the OP, I agree with HappyCpl:

 

I say that if this is what floats your boat, then why not do it? No need to rationalize it to anyone.

[padoc 1,701]

Can we next debate how many angels can dance naked on the head of a pin? That is just as absurd as discussing bible "truths" or whether god would approve of swinging. Bible texts were written originally by & for a small, nomadic tribe maybe 4,000 years ago. Those texts have been rewritten again and again over time to coincide with whatever whim or need the ecclesiastical or civil authorities saw. They have relevance in 21st century America only to people who choose to believe. If you choose to accept the myths than it follows that you have to accept the rules of the myth-keepers. I'd say that most, if not all priests, pastors, rabbis or mullahs would knee-jerk react to a question of swinging in a negative fashion. Consequently, if you are a person of faith, you'd likely be considered a sinner if your swinging activities became general knowledge in your congregation.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

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

 

Since a majority of the public falls into that category, I don't think it is an absurd discussion. You can, and clearly do, disagree on the existence of a God, but the fact is many people choose that belief and would like to know how other swingers reconcile the differences.

 

It is not much different than trying to reconcile any of the many conflicts that swinging poses for a couple. If the thread annoys you, perhaps you should do as I do with threads that annoy me, ignore it.

 

There is really no need to have such a hostile tone towards those that have beliefs different from your own. As swingers don't we get that enough from the rest of the world?

 

And by the way, many Christians, swingers or not, make clear distinctions between faith, scripture, religion and clergy, for reasons I think are obvious. While most clergy would very probably have the opinion that swinging is a sin, they also have had opinions that clearly do not square with faith and scripture.

[padoc 1,701]

Couple, please point out where I was hostile to anyone in my comment. I took a reasoned position and backed it with some pretty well established facts. People have a right to believe (or not) as they see fit. You even agreed with my contention that most clergy would take exception to swinging on religious/moral grounds. How can one claim to be religious and adhere to the basic tenants of religion if one blatantly disregards both the rules and the clergy? Let's line those angels up and start counting!

 

By the way, you have no real idea what I believe. For all you know about me, I could be playing "devil's advocate" here and merely asking provocative questions. Who was it said, "judge not lest you be judged"?

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Couple, please point out where I was hostile to anyone in my comment. I took a reasoned position and backed it with some pretty well established facts. People have a right to believe (or not) as they see fit. You even agreed with my contention that most clergy would take exception to swinging on religious/moral grounds. How can one claim to be religious and adhere to the basic tenants of religion if one blatantly disregards both the rules and the clergy? Let's line those angels up and start counting!

 

By the way, you have no real idea what I believe. For all you know about me, I could be playing "devil's advocate" here and merely asking provocative questions. Who was it said, "judge not lest you be judged"?

 

Why did I use the term hostile?

 

First, sarcasm. The first line of your post was sarcastic, which is by definition derisive.

 

Second, you called the discussion absurd, meaning ridiculous, senseless and untrue. I would certainly call characterizing another persons belief as ridiculous as hostile.

 

Third, while I do not subscribe to the beliefs of Hindu's, Buddhist or Muslims, but I do not characterize their beliefs as myths. But, I will chalk that up to the fact I was raised to be respectful of others religious beliefs even when I disagree with them, and give you the benefit of doubt.

 

How can one claim to be religious and adhere to the basic tenants of religion if one blatantly disregards both the rules and the clergy? Let's line those angels up and start counting!"

 

I never claimed to be religious. Like I said, there is a difference between faith, scripture, religion and clergy. Religion is an organizational structure run by clergy. Clergy are human. Humans are flawed. So it is not to difficult for some of us to separate our faith from religion and clergy. In fact it makes perfect sense.

 

You are correct, I do not know you personally. All I know about you is what I can learn about you from what you write. Your words certainly suggest someone who does not believe in a higher power. And that is fine, your beliefs are yours and I wouldn't think of criticizing them or you for having them.

 

Devils advocate? So, are you saying your intent was to provoke someone? Again, seems kind of hostile. Provoking people in a post seems a lot like trolling to me, but whatever.

[here4thefun69 16]

WhatisTruth said:

I must humbly disagree with you on this specific point. Not all things that are true or represent reality are quantifiable. Something does not have to be tested, measured, or observed for it to be able to exist. Our very ability to measure and observe things as humans is limited to the point of time in our scientific development. The tools and measures we have now would not even be imagined 50 years, just lifetime away, let alone the wonders of a few centuries.

 

I totally agree therefore that is why I said this.

 

here4thefun69 said:

How then can anyone man, church organization, religion, atheist or agnostic define God and whats right or wrong.

You also said this

 

Quote

Not only this, but the scientific method is limited and finite. A creation of finite beings. Therefor, it is incapable of measuring elements of an infinite nature. It even has difficulty measuring qualitative elements....

 

But it is still the best method we have available to test theories. Otherwise it has to fall under blind faith. Again a person has every right to believe what they wish. I can choose to believe that we aren't really from earth or That all dogs are born purple. But that doesn't make it true. I just believe that I have no right to put or expect those beliefs to be put on others. If I tell my child that fire will burn them that is true because I have been burned so it is observable, testable and repeatable. If I say that Moses parted the Red Sea. There is no way for me to test that observe that. May be able to repeat it but I don't see it happening lol. Still Im not saying it didn't happen just Im not going to surrender my entire belief system on it with out facts to back it up.

 

Quote

I contest, on the other hand, that opinions should be critical and well-thought out. They should be compared to other sources of truth and knowing, whether that be a law of physics or the opinion of a respected expert like a Doctor. But even then a well-informed and well-researched opinion is possible or even likely to be wrong. After all, we are mere finite humans.

 

I have posted on the subject of Christianity enough on on this board to let the rest of the thread pass...

 

I really believe we are saying a lot of the same things lol.

[padoc 1,701]

Couple, those were a lot of words that don't really say much and yet appears awfully judgmental to me. Since we're only talking "beliefs" here as opposed to facts, how can anyone actually determine what god thinks of swinging anymore than anyone could determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Since no one can positively determine that either god or angels exist, the discussions are absurd and equally pointless. My guess is that if someone worries whether god approves of their swinging, they probably shouldn't be swinging.

 

I gotta ask you though, what gives you the right to disagree with a Hindu's belief's or a Buddhist's or a Muslim's for that matter? Who are you to disagree? Isn't that just a tad arrogant? Maybe the Prophet did actually ascent to paradise on a steed with a fiery tail. Perhaps in your mind, that's a myth? Of course we don't have many burning bushes talking to us today or pillars of fire or seas parting either so I guess it's possible to see where someone might say.....myth, right?

[Big Rock 173]

I'm no Christian, but I have been in the past. I have read the bible numerous times and in my opinion, it is impossible to be a Christian and part of an established church and be a swinger. Granted there are many ambivalent passages in the old Testiment , but in the New Testiment there are very specific instructions about what constitutes a marriage and what does not. If one follows the Biblical examples, it would be a mortal sin to swing. Rather than listen to some new age quack, I would suggest that you read it for yourself. I would also like to point out that I, myself, don't agree with the Bible on certain issues, this being one of them. But the New Testiment is very clear on this issue.

[WhatisTruth 41]

whatistruth said:

Not all things that are true or represent reality are quantifiable.

 

swing.kidz said:

How do you, WhatisTruth, quantify your above statement?

 

You cannot quantify the statement. The statement is an idea, and ideas are not quantifiable. Well perhaps if you were to quantify it through a linguistic lens, counting the letters, syllables, words, etc, but an idea is a qualitative entity. Perhaps a better question may be, "how do you support this statement?" To that, I would begin listing the many things in this world that are unquantifiable.

 

swing.kidz said:

Sure, there maybe a 'relative' reality we all individually possess and in that it's ok to use faith and subjectively qualitative statements. But on the general idea of reality, something we can all agree on, it MUST be quantifiable, it MUST be observable, it MUST be testable. If it's not, we become dogmatic, prejudice, discriminatory and closed minded.

 

That is the thing about the scientific method...it allows for dynamic understanding of our reality by building upon concepts preceding and testing new data...that is NOT a downside of the method, rather that is its strongest attribute (something all religions lack)!

 

I'm sorry, but why did you assume I was specifically talking about faith or religion? I (having conducted scientific research of both quantifiable and qualitative nature)was referring to everyday reality. "Dynamic understanding of reality" I think not, as you mentioned earlier that it MUST BE "quantifiable, observable, and testable". I believe having such a strict a narrow-mindedness is what leads to dogma, rigidity, and close-mindedness, whether from a spiritual zealot or a science fanatic.

 

swing.kidz said:

And even though we are mere individual humans, greatly susceptible to error, as a whole we do damn well to eradicate those errors and continue to build on the general consensus of reality by using the standards set by scientific methodologies (well, we have done damn well over the last half century anyway...I guess that's not the greatest track record).

 

You have much more faith in the ability of humankind than I do. It seems to me every generation thinks that have a perfect grasp on the world, only to eventually have their foundations swept from beneath them. What is impossible and ludicrous today is common technology tomorrow.

 

padoc said:

Can we next debate how many angels can dance naked on the head of a pin? That is just as absurd as discussing bible "truths" or whether god would approve of swinging. Bible texts were written originally by & for a small, nomadic tribe maybe 4,000 years ago. Those texts have been rewritten again and again over time to coincide with whatever whim or need the ecclesiastical or civil authorities saw. They have relevance in 21st century America only to people who choose to believe. If you choose to accept the myths than it follows that you have to accept the rules of the myth-keepers. I'd say that most, if not all priests, pastors, rabbis or mullahs would knee-jerk react to a question of swinging in a negative fashion. Consequently, if you are a person of faith, you'd likely be considered a sinner if your swinging activities became general knowledge in your congregation.

 

Yes, padoc, you are quite offensive with your posts, to be honest. This isn't the first time either. But that's ok, because life is messy and sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves and dig into the mud a bit. While I will not get into my beliefs on the integration of swinging and Christianity, I will chastise you for discouraging people to think critically about their faith. Whatever spirituality or religion a person believes in or practices, they should do so critically and humbly, and intentionally. Why are you encouraging what I actually believe is "blind faith".

 

Further yet, who are you to tell people of another religion how to practice their religion? I do not tell you how to be an atheist/agnostic/etc, so please do not tell me how to be a Christian.

[WhatisTruth 41]

But the New Testiment is very clear on this issue.

 

Do you mind sharing with me the clarity of the NT in regards to swinging?

[padoc 1,701]

I'm not by nature hostile, I'm just blunt. Everyone tries so damned hard these days not to offend anyone that we're pc'd to death. I didn't denigrate anyone's intelligence or ancestry in my responses to this blog, I merely made what to me appeared to be some valid points. If you want things sugar coated, I'm probably not your guy. Swinging is probably not compatible with christian beliefs. Don't take my word for it however; "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-28). That came from the Sermon on the Mount. I think that's one of the New Testament's biggies.....right?

 

I'm guessing that is where most clergy would go first, right after reading a couple of the 10 Commandments to you. If someone can find a way to get around those things, engage in swinging, and then claim to be christian or religious it would be one hell of a stretch. One could even say hypocritical, but then, that might be deemed offensive or even hostile! You might be able to argue that clergy are human and therefore fallible but how can you argue with god who you believe handed down those self same 10 Commandments or with the words of Jesus who you believe is gods son?

[swing.kidz 367]

DISCLAIMER: This is completely off topic from the OP...sorry, this is just a response to someone who responded to my attempt to clarify another poster.

 

I have already stated what I think about Christians who moonlight as swingers...so, don't read this if you're looking for answers regarding the OP.

 

WhatisTruth said:

You cannot quantify the statement. The statement is an idea, and ideas are not quantifiable. Well perhaps if you were to quantify it through a linguistic lens, counting the letters, syllables, words, etc, but an idea is a qualitative entity. Perhaps a better question may be, "how do you support this statement?" To that, I would begin listing the many things in this world that are unquantifiable.

 

Now you're arguing semantics, but whatever. And of those things that are unquantifiable, how many of them are generally acknowledged as universal truths of reality? That is what I am talking about, that the concept of general reality, for all of us to agree on, must be quantifiable, and must be empirically tested. The abstract idea of God fails this, where as something like the law of gravity passes.

 

WhatisTruth said:

I'm sorry, but why did you assume I was specifically talking about faith or religion?

 

Well, the thread is titled "Christian Swingers" so it would be presumptuous and irresponsible of me to think you were speaking out of context...so I can only use that for my basis...why would I think otherwise?

 

WhatisTruth said:

I (having conducted scientific research of both quantifiable and qualitative nature)was referring to everyday reality.

 

Then you should understand what I am saying. For example, if someone came to you and said, "I think the CIA is after me, and my mom was abducted by aliens!" You would probably laugh him off as being schizophrenic simply because he can't provide to you any sort of empirically based reality to support his claims. The problem with this scenario is, to that person, he IS being chased by the CIA and his mom WAS abducted by aliens...but because we can't test it, we cant observe it and there is no foundation for the statement, we (society as a whole) dismiss HIS reality as delusional and ludicrous. Religion is in the same column (no observable proof, just anecdotal data), but it gets a pass and is generally considered reality in society. Everything else needs quantitative proof to be accepted as "everyday reality", but religion is exempt. And you use that as support to limit the efficacy of the scientific method...interesting. You say you have conducted scientific experiments, so I am confused by your lack of connection.

 

WhatisTruth said:

"Dynamic understanding of reality" I think not, as you mentioned earlier that it MUST BE "quantifiable, observable, and testable".

 

I dont know what you mean here...are you agreeing with me now?

 

WhatisTruth said:

I believe having such a strict a narrow-mindedness is what leads to dogma, rigidity, and close-mindedness, whether from a spiritual zealot or a science fanatic.

 

What is closed minded about questioning the physical space around us? And then being encouraged to question everyone elses' questions? I don't know what a "science fanatic" is, considering science isn't an ideology or a philosophy...it is a METHODOLOGY...a set of rules, checks, balances, data acquisition, testing, results, etc that you or I, or anyone else on this board or in the world can participate in, regardless of sex, race, religion, creed, orientation, etc! How can you label that closed minded? Especially since science has been the driving force behind much political change, many times against the popular opinion??? It is the epitome of "thinking outside the box!" Even the spiritual aspects of our world are tested scientifically, even supernatural phenomena (a lot of which we have found to have a physical basis and turn out to be not supernatural at all).

 

WhatisTruth said:

You have much more faith in the ability of humankind than I do. It seems to me every generation thinks that have a perfect grasp on the world, only to eventually have their foundations swept from beneath them. What is impossible and ludicrous today is common technology tomorrow.

 

I have no faith in humanity as I have witnessed my own atrocities at the hands of human nature. But proof is in the pudding...so to speak. Look at our technology, look at what we've learned about the world. Our discoveries have NOTHING to do with humanity. And I don't need faith when it is right in front of me.

 

Sadly, people who don't understand technological progress assume that all of our advancements through science have taken place only within the last century or two...that seems to be your understanding since you think "all generations have their foundation swept from beneath them," implying that the current scientific paradigm will meet the same fate. But humans have been testing the physical world since before the agricultural revolution (another example of science and technology)...since before the beginning of our contemporary "monotheocracy" (my own word). Our empirical methods have persisted through the demise of empires and other cultural paradigms. I would go as far as to say religion is the result of unsophisticated scientific methods...haha.

 

I am not questioning your religion or your reality (personally, I don't care what you believe happens spiritually). All I am saying is that your religion (and anyone else's) should not be thrust upon the general population as reality without empirically verifying its validity. I am also saying that using the tools that a methodology like scientific experimentation is the best route we have for establishing a general understanding of the world as we all experience it.

[SsHubby 56]

“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.

(1 Corinthians 10:23 ESV)

 

I am not a Bible teacher, but I am well versed. The above verse has also been translated with "lawful" being "permissible" and "helpful" being "beneficial". Now like a drug, anything can be beneficial for one person and not beneficial to another. So to a damaged marriage swinging could be non-beneficial, but to a stable, healthy marriage, who is to say that it can't be beneficial. That is a judgement call to be made by the people involved and many times that judgement call can't be made except in hindsight. But no matter what you believe about the Bible, there is one verse that is inescapable:

 

"For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

(Romans 8:38-39 ESV)

 

I would say that nothing means nothing. That would seem to be a pretty straight forward statement, written by a man that is responsible for writing the bulk of the New Testament.

[JsWife 49]

My hubby and I have had this conversation in depth and we agree as he stated our opinion above. Basically, I don't think anyone of us or any "vanilla" people have a right to condescend what anyone enjoys sexually. I believe that it's each person's or couple's responsibility to have this discussion heart-to-heart with themselves and God (should they believe in God), and if there is any doubt whatsoever in their mind that what they are doing might be wrong, then don't do it. Being nervous is one thing, but having doubt about your actions is another. If there is doubt, then you need to do more soul searching and research and if doubt remains, don't do it. All it will do is cause regret, confusion, and may even break up your relationship/marriage. Doubt v. pleasure is not worth that in my opinion.

 

That's why my hubby and I have an agreement that if at anytime either one of us feels that this isn't right or just needs to stop, that person just says so and we are done with it...whether it's just for that one instance or if it's for getting away from this completely and to never look back. You have to have trust in yourself, your partner/spouse, and in God (if you believe in God). No need to justify yourself or your choices to anyone else.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Padoc, many of your post are well reasoned, but not all. In my opinion certainly not in this thread.

 

This thread was started by someone with a legitimate question. Rather than simply giving an opinion, you chose to be disrespectful and dismissive of people's belief system by calling them myths and an absurd discussion. If you feel that people with faith are so absurd for discussing their “myths” and how it affects their lives, then why not just ignore it? If you feel compelled to comment they why not try to do so while remaining respectful in your comments? Being respectful of peoples beliefs is not about political correctness, it is about character. Being blunt does not equal showing disdain.

 

To answer your question, not subscribing to another persons belief system is not arrogant at all. In fact I fully support yours or anyone else's right to disagree. I would point out the hypocrisy in implying arrogance in disagreeing with someones beliefs in the same thread you called those beliefs myths and the discussion of those beliefs foolish.

[padoc 1,701]

Myth defined:

A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

 

Pretty much fits my comments and therefore neither insulting or disrespectful.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

padoc said:

Myth defined:

A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

 

Pretty much fits my comments and therefore neither insulting or disrespectful.

 

Golf clap to Padoc, you can use a dictionary. And you are correct, that is the definition of myth. And even theologians use the term when discussing religion within context. Perhaps context is something else you should look up. While you are at it you might try looking up absurd and pejorative.

 

At a point I had to ask myself why I continue this discussion with you. My hope was for you to see that you can certainly voice an opinion without belittling what others believe.

 

Take Rock for example. His introduction to this board, and even some subsequent post, drew some staunch reaction from some on this board because voiced what some saw as very negative views of the lifestyle. He and I have discussed that on occasion. In a civil manner I might add. Now Rock post to this thread, while I may not agree with his opinion, or his absolutism, he did so without disparaging others.

 

While it has has been pointed out to you that your remarks seem belittling, you remain steadfast in your stance they are not.

 

So I have to ask myself why.

 

Is it that you are incapable of understanding that your language is demeaning an entire group of people's belief system? It seems clear that you do not grasp that idea, but it is puzzling how an intelligent person could not.

 

Are you so self-centered that you cannot for even allow for the fact you could be wrong in your belief that you are not being derisive of others?

 

Is it that you just do not care? And if so, why bother defending yourself at all?

 

Or is it that you are so intolerant of, or have so much animosity towards certain beliefs that you cannot resist injecting your opinion in a manner that is belittling?

 

Perhaps I am wrong, and your remarks are not seen as demeaning by others. But I do have a decent grasp of the language, I do understand context and sarcasm. I think it is reasonable to draw the conclusions I have.

 

In any case it seems unlikely that your position will change. But thank you for giving me more insight to your character.

[Big Rock 173]

Do you mind sharing with me the clarity of the NT in regards to swinging?

Not at all. Matthew 10:8 and Matthew 19:5-6. Read it for yourself. Note that it says the TWO shall become ONE flesh. Not three or four or more, just the TWO. I may not agree with this, but it is pretty cut and dried.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Not at all. Matthew 10:8 and Matthew 19:5-6. Read it for yourself. Note that it says the TWO shall become ONE flesh. Not three or four or more, just the TWO. I may not agree with this, but it is pretty cut and dried.

 

Rock, a word of caution. The bible has been translated numerous times. I cannot speak in detail to the two passages you mention above without going back and doing some research,(which I have not time for right now), but it is very common in English translations to have a meaning that is not entirely accurate. Sometimes this was dues to difficulties in the English language to properly convey meaning. Sometimes it was church politics or something else. In any case going back and studying the text as close to the original source as possible often shows different meanings.

 

And by the way Matt 10 Jesus sending the disciples out as apostles to collect the flock among the Jews. 10:8 is specifically about healing the sick and raising the dead to show that they were indeed Jesus apostles. Not really sure how that applies to sex let alone swinging.

 

Matthew 19:5-6 - I am reaching back in memory here, but I do remember this one a bit because it struck me funny. Part of this verse in Latin, literally means "glued together". If I remember correctly this verse was about the bond between husband and wife being stronger than that of the parents and child. And one flesh is also interpreted to mean create one flesh from two, literally to propagate. The English version is certainly debatable when it comes to swinging, but seems to become less specific about sex when looked at in Greek and Latin.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

I feel the need to add one more thing. I am not arguing that the Bible says "yes go out an be swingers," far from it. What I am saying is that much of what we are taught on Bible studies is far more restrictive or conversely broad or even different from the the original text.

 

Translations are inherently changed, which is often why parts of the Bible seem in conflict in my opinion. When a specific passage is broadened or changed in basic meaning then it more easily conflicts with other passages. It is also more easily used by people that are utilizing the Bible for their own purposes. The Bible's original text was written in no less than four languages. Much of where we get moder translations are translations from Latin, which had been translated from Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic which makes translation even more difficult at times.

 

The Bible is a wonderful thing in my mind, but it is not so easy to understand as it appears at times. I am always cautious about what people throw out passages from the Bible, both pro and con, on any topic because so much of it has been mistakenly, or broadly translated and is often taken out of context to suit the purpose of the person using the quote.

 

To the OP basically I am saying I have read the Bible numerous times, studied much of its text in the original language (with assistance) and feel that in the end I am good with God, even if not in law I am in grace, with or without being a swinger.

[SsHubby 56]

Not at all. Matthew 10:8 and Matthew 19:5-6. Read it for yourself. Note that it says the TWO shall become ONE flesh. Not three or four or more, just the TWO. I may not agree with this, but it is pretty cut and dried.

 

But now what if these verses are referring more to the commitment between the married couple as being unbreakable rather then a direct only 2 people sexually and that's it. I mean this lifestyle is not supposed to damage that commitment and if it doesn't then I don't see how this would go against the "one flesh" verses of the bible.

 

I believe that there are some areas where we might be misinterpreting what was truly meant.

[padoc 1,701]

Couple, you are apparently so thin skinned that you simply can't tolerate someone who doesn't sugar coat his statements to make you feel better about a disagreement. If you wish to feel offended or "belittled" please, have at it. That may work better for you than perhaps really examining your belief systems. As before, you use a lot of words to mask the fact that you are saying little. You say my words seem belittling and then you flounder about trying to not so subtly insult by speculating about both my motives and my personality. The key word here is speculating. You know nothing about me or my beliefs or my personality. Apparently, my points on the issue at hand are fairly strong because instead of addressing them, you choose to dispute my "tone" and disparage my character. Those are the tactics of someone possessed of a weak argument or a weak mind.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Feel free to point out any of your arguments I may have missed.

[WhatisTruth 41]

Couple, you are apparently so thin skinned that you simply can't tolerate someone who doesn't sugar coat his statements to make you feel better about a disagreement. If you wish to feel offended or "belittled" please, have at it. That may work better for you than perhaps really examining your belief systems. As before, you use a lot of words to mask the fact that you are saying little. You say my words seem belittling and then you flounder about trying to not so subtly insult by speculating about both my motives and my personality. The key word here is speculating. You know nothing about me or my beliefs or my personality. Apparently, my points on the issue at hand are fairly strong because instead of addressing them, you choose to dispute my "tone" and disparage my character. Those are the tactics of someone possessed of a weak argument or a weak mind.

 

Padoc, our issue, at least my issue, isn't the content of your criticism; instead, it is the method in which you do it. It's not a matter of needing to "sugar coat" something, its a matter of civility. Perfect example is that your blaming us for feeling offended, assuming that its because we haven't "really examined our belief system". That also carries undertones of disrespect. You have no clue how much any of us have already done that, but instead make an assumption based on the conclusions we have drawn. Because this issue is "so absurd" to you, one possibly couldn't have drawn a conclusion different than your own without seriously considering it.

 

Not at all. Matthew 10:8 and Matthew 19:5-6. Read it for yourself. Note that it says the TWO shall become ONE flesh. Not three or four or more, just the TWO. I may not agree with this, but it is pretty cut and dried.

 

Coupleerotic already addressed this and gave insight into Mathew 19. I will also add that Jesus is talking about divorce. Of which, his comments give us insight into the nature of marriage. It says nothing about sex outside of marriage...though there are other verses that refer to that.

 

Also food for thought for other folks reading...Many of you have said that they don't understand how one can both be a "real" (whatever that means) Christian and a swinger. Yet, there are MANY here and in life that are both. They are at peace with their spirituality and do not find conflict between the two, with varying levels of searching and critical thinking about it. Their vary existence refutes the thought that they cannot exist!

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Padoc, our issue, at least my issue, isn't the content of your criticism; instead, it is the method in which you do it. It's not a matter of needing to "sugar coat" something, its a matter of civility. Perfect example is that your blaming us for feeling offended, assuming that its because we haven't "really examined out belief system". That also carries undertones of disrespect. You have no clue how much any of us have already done that, but instead make an assumption based on the conclusions we have drawn. Because this issue is "so absurd" to you, one possibly couldn't have drawn a conclusion different than your own without seriously considering it.

 

Well said.

 

Many of you have said that they don't understand how one can both be a "real" (whatever that means" Christian and a swinger. Yet, there are MANY here and in life that are both. They are at peace with their spirituality and do not find conflict between the two, with varying levels of searching and critical thinking about it. Their vary existence refutes the thought that they cannot exist!

 

Again, well said.

[slevin 1,374]

It is an interesting sociological train of thought here. Is the person speaking responsible for how someone else perceives their communication? Or is the person listening responsible for how they perceive it? Not an easy question to answer, but I think that when I am trying to make a point it is on my shoulders to make sure that is communicated effectively to get my point across. In business I try to shift my communication style so that it is effective with whoever I am talking to. It's not always possible of course. This isn't really being PC in my mind, it's just learning to be an effective communicator.

 

I also don't think that "being blunt" is the opposite of being PC. I don't like PC bullshit, but there are ways to be honest without being intentionally blunt, harsh or abrasive.

 

On the Christian swingers front, I'll be honest that I just don't worry about it. I think that my choices make sense and I don't feel like they interfere with believing in something. I gave up going to church and following church based teaching long ago. After the youthful rejection of religion I've grown back into being spiritual and throwing out anything I don't think makes sense. Perhaps that is more of a statement on my generations viewpoint on life and the importance of ourselves than anything else though

[Chicup 41]

I think Christian Swingers (or Muslim, or Jewish or whatever) are much like my wife was when I met her at 18.

 

She was still going to church on Sundays while in college, often going directly from my bed to do so. So me, willing to look a gift horse in the mouth, asked her, 'if she really believed, then why was she having so much sex with me?' I don't recall exactly how I phrased it being so many years ago, but that was the crux of it. Now I didn't quite take the bull by the horns here as I knew she wasn't going to stop having sex.

 

And her answer was more a shrug then a response. While some go to extreme theological mental gymnastics trying to show that swinging is compatible with being a full blown (no pun intended) Christian, what I really see happening is that shrug.

 

I know if I was a believer I'd NOT be a swinger, as life on this earth would be far to short and far to unimportant to worry about a few moments of pleasure and relief vs an eternity.

 

I think people just take what they want out of their religion, ignore what they don't want, and since swinging doesn't quite fit, they either make it fit or just mentally shrug.

 

I don't blame them for that shrug, obviously its hard to imagine a god worried about where you put your penis on a daily basis in an endeavor that seems to hurt no one and makes people happy like swinging.

 

I do blame them for the lack of ability to take the next logical step though.

[Big Rock 173]

I'm fully aware that other interpretations can be placed on just about any Biblical passage you can name. I'm also not saying that I, personally believe this. What I'm saying is what the vast majority of Judeo-Christian and Islamic churches believe as marital guidelines. If you are a follower of these organized religions, and had your marriage sanctified , then sex outside of marriage is a sin, no two ways about it. Other than some "new age", cults like Scientology, I defy any poster to find a Rabbi, Minister, Priest, Preacher or Imam, who would say that swinging is not a sin. Don't believe me? Walk up to one and ask.

[Big Rock 173]

Btw, I am, in no way, trying to be judgemental to anyone. I, personally believe that anybody can have whatever type of relationship with God, that they are comfortable with. Religions are absolutist, I am not, regardless of what Coupleerotic22 says about me

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Chicup said:

I think people just take what they want out of their religion, ignore what they don't want, and since swinging doesn't quite fit, they either make it fit or just mentally shrug.

I do blame them for the lack of ability to take the next logical step though.

 

I think you are right Slevin, many Christians do just shrug. But I think some of us do try to take the next logical step. That is why we research, ask questions and have "absurd" discussions.

 

But I do not think it is as simple as some believe. "The Bible says x so if you do y your going to hell" or "it is impossible to be a swinger and a Christian."

 

I was first was exposed to this as a teen. At the time a strange disease with no name was killing gay men. I questioned a pastor about it and his response floored me. While most churches were taking a hard stance against homosexuals based on scripture, our church took no stance again based on scripture. I learned fast to question what people claim the Bible says and figure it out for myself.

 

Could I be dead wrong about feeling I am okay as a swinger and a Christian? Absolutely, but I hope not. If I figure out for sure I am in the wrong I leave the LS behind. But I will do that when I am sure, not when someone tells me they are sure I am headed to hell.

 

I guess it also helps that we have a safety net called grace. Without that we would be headed to hell for eating a cheese burger.

[padoc 1,701]

Chicup made a good point. While it IS hard to imagine god worrying about where one of his people puts his penis, that is exactly what he does with that old thou shalt not commit adultery commandment. It is my contention that conventional christianity clearly prohibits swinging and it is still as absurd to try to rationalize away the 10 Commandments and the New Testament, to say nothing of the clergy, to justify a prohibited but pleasurable behavior as it is to argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

Truth and Couple, please don't be any further offended but I honestly don't care that you don't like my tone. I fully respect peoples right to believe anything they choose to believe. I take exception however to your apparent requirement that I respect a belief simply because someone has one.

 

I recognize that many people believed in the Greek Pantheon of Gods, it was their right to do so and I respect that right but I can't say I respect the belief. The Japanese, as late as 1945, believed their Emperor to be divine, I respect their right to believe what they want but I can't say I respect the belief.

 

You two can believe any damned thing that you want. You can even believe the moon is made of cheese and if you do, by your reasoning, I have to respect that as well, correct? On the other hand, if I have no such beliefs, aren't you then compelled to respect my lack of belief? Come on guys, you're not debating substance here, just style. Neither of you like my writing style, my use of the language and my tone, but you haven't really been able to dispute my argument and that's what really bothers you.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Truth and Couple, please don't be any further offended but I honestly don't care that you don't like my tone. I fully respect peoples right to believe anything they choose to believe. I take exception however to your apparent requirement that I respect a belief simply because someone has one.

 

You two can believe any damned thing that you want. You can even believe the moon is made of cheese and if you do, by your reasoning, I have to respect that as well, correct? On the other hand, if I have no such beliefs, aren't you then compelled to respect my lack of belief? Come on guys, you're not debating substance here, just style. Neither of you like my writing style, my use of the language and my tone, but you haven't really been able to dispute my argument and that's what really bothers you.

 

I am not offended at all. Your tone was all I ever objected too. I am not trying to debate you on the merits of Christianity versus ???, I am not evangelizing or trying to convert you. This forum is not the place for that, which is precisely why I never argued with you or anyone on the substance of their arguments. I am perfectly fine with you believing what ever you wish.

 

I am not asking you to respect my beliefs either. I previously made a post, I am not sure if it is this forum or anther, explaining my view of tolerance versus respecting someones beliefs. TO recap in short; to me tolerance is simply respecting their right to believe whatever they choose without belittling what they think. Respecting someones beliefs on the other hand is tantamount to endorsing those beliefs.

 

What I have objected to was your tone. I object to people implying all swingers are deviants, all doctors are quacks, all of anybody are anything, even that all politicians are crooked, though I am not sure I don't agree with the last one.

 

Am I required to respect your beliefs, hell no, but I don't think I need to make any blanket statement about your beliefs either. You can call that political correctness if you like, I just call it being civil.

 

I don't even object you taking a direct shot at me, but blanket statements about a group or their beliefs, intelligence or morals or other topic is just uncalled for in my opinion.

[SsHubby 56]

Definitions of adultery:

 

extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations; "adultery is often cited as grounds for divorce"

 

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

I added the emphasis to the first definition under a Google search of "Define:adultery". I didn't "cherry pick" the definition.

 

No you won't find a priest or any religious leader that will condone swinging. But you find plenty of them that will tell you that you have to wear a burka, or that women should only wear skirts, or that baptism is only by immersion, or that you need to attend confession or that only priests should interpret the bible or that you should only eat certain foods and a laundry list of other things that even religious leaders can't agree on. It could argued from now until doomsday, but it all depends on the person and what they believe. The fact is that no actions like this will separate you from your "salvation". But that could be argued by interpretation as well. Discussions like this are good because even if they go in circles, they give someone the knowledge or peace they are looking for. Of course anyone truly worried about this subject can easily stop this lifestyle and "pray for forgiveness".

[Alura 2,773]

Its time to ease up on the confrontation in this thread, Folks. I'd hate to see discussions of religion to go the same route that discussions of politics had to, because religion is a valid issue for many involved in swinging. Politics is not.

 

There have been posts that neared or even crossed over the line of civility with other members. Those who have received messages from moderators know who they are. We need not belittle anyone for his beliefs even if we find them repugnant or not well thought out. Don't use insinuation or innuendo. Sarcasm is sometimes a valuable tool in discussions but use it lightly and with a lot of forethought about how others will perceive it.

 

I'm just a hick Okie, but it seems to me that Believers who know there is a god, have as equal a chance of being right as do Non-believers who know there is not.

 

This is the friendliest discussion board I've seen on the Internet; it took a lot of work to get it this way and we all want to keep it so.

 

Thank you,

Alura

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Alura is correct and I apologize to the board for hijacking this thread, taking it to a place that it did not need to go and dragging the nonsense out for so long.

 

Let's just get back to the OP and what the thread was originally posted for to begin with.

[want2watch40 20]

The only comments I can make on this subject are as follows:

 

The Bible can be interpreted any way someone wants it to be or not to be. You can't just take one passage and create an opinion of what the bible says. Hell, you can't take 5 passages with similar words and make a determination of what it says. It's all about how you perceive it. You give 5 different people the same question and you'll get 5 different answers (some may be similar but not exactly the same).

 

I will not get in to my personal religious beliefs but I can say I lived with a religious fanatic for 25 years (her family was as well).

 

The organized religions make bible interpretation (and it's an interpretation of its own) more difficult because most people do not read the bible for themselves. They go to church, sit in the pews and take in what this one man/woman in the pulpit tells them. They think what they hear is correct without researching it themselves. Organized religion has really hurt the movement God intended.

 

The relationship people have with their "higher power" is a personal one. They are the ones to make the decision based on what they research and come to grips with. It's not about someone telling them what they can and can't do (after all this is only another human that has interpreted things the way they are comfortable with. Note: I haven't found a passage saying a woman has to wear a skirt/dress).

 

In today's society where "normal" is determined by someone else, I honestly don't think you can publicly call yourself a Christian Swinger within the "normal" congregations.

 

Mr. Want