Swinging and faith

[2quirky806 52]

So I know this isn’t a particular sexy post and can be controversial. But I’ve was wondering how many of us have had the battle of faith vr swinging. I am a man of faith regularly attend and volunteer at church I love my lord and seek him but I also want to swing. There are things that my wife and I want to try such as a dp gb and full swap. But I know if I let this part of my life get out that there would be a lot of shame and condemnation. I mentioned it to someone recently and it was meet with shame. So how do y’all feel about faith and swinging?

[VanillaBeen 21]

Only one sin is unforgivable, and that isn't swinging. All sins are punishable during our lifetime, except for the one. Swinging is probably low of the list for punishment.

[SoORCouple 22]

It was a factor in our discussions. My wife practices a form of Protestant Christian, while I am a Deist. We're fine with a very kinky sex life, and started swinging, though our first foray into said was pretty terrible. The way my wife, largely, rectified things is the Bible, the Old Testament specifically, is loaded with non-monogamous relationships, including one that, according to the text, was God's blessing (2 Samuel 12). For me it was a lot easier; the Light of Reason is what guides Deists, and there couldn't be anything more obvious than people like to get their freak on.

[EastInWest 1,524]

If there are Orthodox Jewish swingers - and there are - I'm pretty sure most forms of Christianity have some room for this within a loving, honest marriage.

 

https://www.swingersboard.com/forums/topic/58982-swinging-and-churchgoersreligion-not-what-you-might-think/

 

This was another good thread on this a while ago, and I'll repeat what I said there: monogamy was upheld in Christianity because it was "the Roman custom", the pagan cultural practice that was normal in that time, thousands of years after the Old Testament, not because Hebrew law said so. Like SoORCouple says above, if anything, it might have seemed weird to them. Even then, into the Middle Ages, the Church officially tolerated various episodes of wife-snatching, concubinage, and outright sex slavery for centuries.

 

Some of Paul's writings are taken as evidence of extremely strict attitudes about sex in the early church, but they're often read to mean that Paul believed that even sex within marriage was just a politely tolerated concession to immorality and that what was best was to be celibate. You'd be hard-pressed to find a clear tradition supporting that view, which, to me, suggests either that Paul was off the rails or that Paul has been misread.

 

I was raised in the Protestant Bible Belt. In that setting, there are always some things you won't always be able to see eye-to-eye with people on in your church, and, of course, you don't have to. My preference for a shot of bourbon after a big meal is somebody else's "drinking problem" in some denominations. In others, they may as well have a happy hour after the service. In my opinion, those things are subjective, personal issues to settle with your faith privately.

 

Mrs. E was raised very Catholic, in the plaid skirt with nuns and the whole bit, and had her own baggage about sex to drop on her own timetable. We're glad we do what we do and enjoy that we're able to do it.

[GoldCoCouple 4,066]

There are some other threads on this topic as well that may help:

 

Christian Swingers

 

Religion and Swinging?

 

 

Stealing this from our post in another thread.

 

One other site that I have kept bookmarked is this:

 

Monogamy Isn't Biblical, It's Roman

 

I always wondered why the Old Testament had men marrying multiple wives and then it just stopped in the New Testament. This explains a lot of the why.

 

Bottom line is we both believe in God and are religious, but we also believe that whatever anyone else believes in, as long as it makes them a better person and doesn't hurt others, is a good thing and should be allowed and encouraged. I would hate to be in front of the gates of heaven only to see Buddha or Allah or The Great Spirit was the 'right' God and have Him tell us 'you picked the wrong God...sorry, you are out'. I believe that this won't happen, but at the same time believe that God wouldn't be so religious exclusive (only one 'right' religion and everyone else goes to Hell). Most organized religion teaches 'be a good person and be nice to everyone else'...we do our best to adhere to this although we identify ourselves as Christian. Swinging is something that we do TOGETHER in the light, not behind the back of our SO in the dark. It doesn't 'hurt' either one of us and we do our best not to allow it to hurt anyone else. We don't see where it goes against our 'makes them a better person and doesn't hurt others' belief so we don't have a conflict or issue with the two. We try, as instructed by the Bible, not to judge others and keep our stone casting in check.

[ToeDippers 83]

There are so many hypocrites in this world. They pick and choose what the want to do. You can find things in the Bible that says it is fine to stone someone, you can find the reason for polygamy, you can find almost any “sin” you want to commit, to be condoned somewhere in the “Bible”.

 

Whose bible? Someone didn’t like what one bible said so they wrote another. East you wrote Orthodox Jews swing, heck they can’t even shake a woman’s hand. And guess what, even Orthodox Jews can’t agree on anything. Christians? Why are there so break offs to start new religions?

 

All these religions are thousands of years old. People evolved. Wait maybe we haven’t evolved because they banned evolution to be taught.

 

Don’t get me started in archaic civil laws. It’s what the founders meant?

 

Now I know why there are No Unicorns.

[EastInWest 1,524]

ToeDippers said:

There are so many hypocrites in this world. They pick and choose what the want to do. You can find things in the Bible that says it is fine to stone someone, you can find the reason for polygamy, you can find almost any “sin” you want to commit, to be condoned somewhere in the “Bible".

 

I'm not sure if you're upset with what I wrote or not, but I am aware that even the specifics of "touch-observance" are debated and have been since the middle ages, and that wife-swapping, while widely prohibited by rabbinical interpretation, has been known to come up since those days, as well.

 

My basic point was that nearly everything in life falls, ultimately, on the person who has to live with it. Your preferred clergy might be a valuable spiritual guide and authority, but ultimately, they're not you and don't have to live out your years. If you subscribe to a religious doctrine, look at it honestly and do what you feel you have to do, because you're the one who will be living with it. If you conclude that you should adhere strictly to a specific doctrine's prohibition or couldn't live with being found out to be a less-than-perfect adherent, by all means, do that and don't let anyone talk you down.

[cplnluv1 872]

I am going to say we are all sinners. Some will go to church and feel they are absolved of their sins. You are correct in saying we all have to live with what we do. I also agree with I swear there ain’t no heaven and pray there ain’t no hell.

 

We were with a couple who had a huge crucifix over their bed. I guess she knew who she was calling out to.

[agreatguy 269]

Some things are inherently wrong. Taking another persons property or life for example.

 

This is my own interpretation and may not make total sense but as a Christian I was taught that Jesus is, and this is a very basic explanation, the second covenant from God to us. That the first covenant became so complicated and convoluted with additional rules made by the leaders that no one could follow them all and get into heaven. Now I'm obviously not Jewish and there still are plenty that try to follow those rules but God handed down the 10 commandments and then some 600 other rules to live by. I don't know if all those rules work or not.

 

#1 I have a hard time reconciling that an all knowing, all powerful God would have to say, "oh, my bad, let's try Jesus, that might work better".

But Jesus only had one rule which was easy enough to follow...That is until religion got involved again.

 

#2 I have a hard time reconciling that a benevolent God who is all about love will be a cruel and vengeful God when I leave this earth.

 

Religion is rules and laws handed down by mortals interpreting what they believe to be God's or Allah's or Buddha's or whoever's intent is or was for us. I'm not about following a bunch of made up rules being forced on me to keep me in line with the masses. I prefer to find my own path of spirituality, one for me that does include the Trinity. I believe that if I show others love and kindness, If I respect what they have, what they've earned and who they are then I will be considered a good person when the time comes for judgement to be passed on how I lived my life...by whoever is passing judgement.

[couplers 4,647]

I agree with the saying, "I thank God I was raised Catholic, so sex will always be dirty."

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

GoldCoCouple said:

Monogamy Isn't Biblical, It's Roman

This is true.

 

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. ... " In the context of biblical times, that wife you were not supposed to covet was almost surely meant to imply any one of your neighbor's many wives. I'm not sure of it but I suspect that having sex with only one woman over a lifetime is an invention of Saint Paul.

[agreatguy 269]

SW_PA_Couple said:

This is true.

 

I'm not sure of it but I suspect that having sex with only one woman over a lifetime is an invention of Saint Paul.

 

I'd say that's an accurate statement. Corinth was a very corrupt city. The church of Corinth was made up of people who were thick in that corruption but were interested in a new way of life and this new promised easy pathway to salvation. Perhaps Paul had a bit of a problem with it being just that easy so he made it seem more difficult by issuing his own rules based on the principles of Jesus as he interpreted them. Thus the "religion" of Christianity was born.

 

I have a hard time reconciling that God would give us something so amazing as sex then tell us it's only to be shared with one person.

[couplers 4,647]

I have a hard time reconciling that God would give us something so amazing as sex then tell us it's only to be shared with one person.

 

That was my Epiphany. That and enjoying Lesbian sex. It went against everything that I was taught as a girl raised Catholic by two devout parents and reenforced by social norms. Once I got through it made me much more skeptical of everything.

[kcjones 59]

I understand where the OP is coming from. My wife and I discussed this issue ad nauseam. From a protestant theological stand point, there are many misconceptions and misinterpretations of the bible. I am not a theologian nor biblical scholar, but I am grateful to have had this discussion with friends and family member who are. The Bible never speaks against concubines or polygamy. The concept of lust as a sin is not theologically correct either. What the bible absolutely speaks out against is adultery, which is always described as having sex with a married woman that is not yours. The only advice I have is: Your bedroom belongs to you and your spouse. It is no one else's (Not family's,members of your church, or pastor's) business. No better way to defile your marital bed, than to allow some self-righteous, judgmental, A-hole know what you two do within the privacy of your marriage. Godspeed.

[2quirky806 52]

Hey guys just wanted to say thank you for your reply’s and your valuable info. This helps with my questions.

[couplers 4,647]

From a protestant theological stand point, there are many misconceptions and misinterpretations of the bible.

 

The Bible wasn't written as an operations and procedures manual, it is full of stories, parables, and allegories. So the teachings of the Bible says cannot be separated from its interpretation, or which there are many.

[VanillaBeen 21]

The simple fact is , as vast as life and the Universe is, I'd be ashamed of the god that cared who I had sex with. In fact, if I was told that a god cared who I had sed with, I'd postulate that it didn't exist and it was a manifestation of neurosis and conflicted mind that needed resolution that was superior than the supernatural.

 

Why would God not care about something so important in the life of his most cherished creation?

[PSULioness 857]

You are all giving answers based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. What about the Gods of Sex?

 

Teicu, goddess of sexual appetite.

Tlaco, goddess of sexual longing.

Xocotzin, goddess of sexual desire

Min, god of reproduction, love, and sexual pleasure

Eros, god of love and sexual desire

Himeros, god of sexual desire and unrequited love

 

These are just a few Gods that others may look to.

 

Do you think these Gods are made up myths? Oh, are only your Gods real?

[kcjones 59]

couplers said:

The Bible wasn't written as an operations and procedures manual, it is full of stories, parables, and allegories. So the teachings of the Bible says cannot be separated from its interpretation, or which there are many.

 

Good point. The term I should have used is mis-translation, rather than mis-interpretation, as we all interpret incoming stimuli. For example, Matthew 5:27-28 is widely known to be wrongly translated in virtually every bible. Here is great explanation I wish every evangelical would read: https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/

[agreatguy 269]

You are all giving answers based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. What about the Gods of Sex?

Teicu, goddess of sexual appetite.

Tlaco, goddess of sexual longing.

Xocotzin, goddess of sexual desire

Min, god of reproduction, love, and sexual pleasure

Eros, god of love and sexual desire

Himeros, god of sexual desire and unrequited love

 

These are just a few Gods that others may look to.

 

Do you think these Gods are made up myths? Oh, are only your Gods real?

 

 

Religion is rules and laws handed down by mortals interpreting what they believe to be God's or Allah's or Budda's or whoever's intent is or was for us. I'm not about following a bunch of made up rules being forced on me to keep me in line with the masses. I prefer to find my own path of spirituality, one for me that does include the Trinity. I believe that if I show others love and kindness, If I respect what they have, what they've earned and who they are then I will be considered a good person when the time comes for judgement to be passed on how I lived my life...by whoever is passing judgement.

 

 

Not all of us...

[VanillaBeen 21]

You are all giving answers based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. What about the Gods of Sex?

Teicu, goddess of sexual appetite.

Tlaco, goddess of sexual longing.

Xocotzin, goddess of sexual desire

Min, god of reproduction, love, and sexual pleasure

Eros, god of love and sexual desire

Himeros, god of sexual desire and unrequited love

 

These are just a few Gods that others may look to.

 

Do you think these Gods are made up myths? Oh, are only your Gods real?

 

I'm not very familiar with these gods. On the surface, they seem nonsensical. The Judeo-Christian belief has the most plausible explanation for the existence of our universe. Logic and science will support this belief, but it probably will not support the existence of those other gods.

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

Carl Sagan had the most plausible reason for the existence of our universe.

[VanillaBeen 21]

Carl Sagan had the most plausible reason for the existence of our universe.

 

What is Carl Sagan's explanation for the existence of the universe?

[agreatguy 269]

As the OP said, this topic can be very controversial.

The topic is the battle of faith in swinging. Turning it into a debate on the existence of a particular Deity or which is the correct one is an exercise in futility.

Recognizing that this board has worldwide reach it's a good idea to accept all opinions on the topic but we also need to recognize what this board is, Swingersboard, and practice acceptance and tolerance in faith just as we practice acceptance and tolerance within swinging. We don't judge someone for their comfort level of play whether it be voyeurism, full swap or Cuckolding.

 

I do believe though, that this board is most read and participated in by Americans and Canadians who have roots firmly planted in Judeo-Christian philosophy so I think it's reasonable that most responses are going to reference that philosophy. I don't think it's intentionally marginalizing other faiths or Deities, it's just what the majority of us responding know.

[VanillaBeen 21]

I would agree that there are two possibilities. One is that the universe had a beginning, which logic and scientific evidence leads most of us to believe, and is Biblical. The second, is that the universe has existed for an eternity, which is illogical and not backed up by evidence. Carl Sagan is not using classical logic in that segment as he stated the two possibilities.

 

There is a discipline called "epistemology." It is basically the study of knowledge and how it is acquired. If your starting point for acquiring knowledge discounts any possibility for God, you will find the Bible to be largely unbelievable. If your starting place for the same endeavor includes the belief in God, the Bible is plausible.

 

Many non-believers and skeptics will argue about what they find to be impossible or morally unsound for a perfect God as pertaining to the Bible. What they fail to do is use their reasoning skills to try to determine if a creator of the universe is necessary for it to exist. If there is a God who created the our universe, Biblical miracles are not impossible. The Christian faith maintains that our universe must have had a creator. Logic and scientific evidence strengthens our claims, and weakens different belief systems.

 

Some believe that I am getting off topic in this thread. My statements are very important to faith. If there is no God, faith is unimportant. I'm arguing that there necessarily must be a creator of our universe or it could not exist. Since there is a creator, faith is important and has ramifications to swingers.

[agreatguy 269]

I would agree that there are two possibilities. One is that the universe had a beginning, which logic and scientific evidence leads most of us to believe, and is Biblical. The second, is that the universe has existed for an eternity, which is illogical and not backed up by evidence. Carl Sagan is not using classical logic in that segment as he stated the two possibilities.

 

There is a discipline called "epistemology." It is basically the study of knowledge and how it is acquired. If your starting point for acquiring knowledge discounts any possibility for God, you will find the Bible to be largely unbelievable. If your starting place for the same endeavor includes the belief in God, the Bible is plausible.

 

Many non-believers and skeptics will argue about what they find to be impossible or morally unsound for a perfect God as pertaining to the Bible. What they fail to do is use their reasoning skills to try to determine if a creator of the universe is necessary for it to exist. If there is a God who created the our universe, Biblical miracles are not impossible. The Christian faith maintains that our universe must have had a creator. Logic and scientific evidence strengthens our claims, and weakens different belief systems.

 

Some believe that I am getting off topic in this thread. My statements are very important to faith. If there is no God, faith is unimportant. I'm arguing that there necessarily must be a creator of our universe or it could not exist. Since there is a creator, faith is important and has ramifications to swingers.

 

In my experience on other boards and threads where this topic is brought up it inevitably derails and goes where this one is headed. It never ends well because there are too many belief systems and most everyone passionately believes theirs is the right one.

 

I do believe you are getting off topic and taking the thread to a place it wasn't intended to go, that being a debate on whether Deity exists and proving or disproving it in a logical way...It's a debate that has gone on for centuries and won't be solved on a swinger's board. Next we'll be arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or whether angels exist at all.

 

The direction the thread is going does nothing to further the question of how one deals with faith and swinging assuming faith is an issue. The topic of the thread is how we deal with our faith in a Deity while swinging. Your statements are important to faith in so far as whether or not faith is relevant. The OP makes it relevant by asking the question "How do you deal with your faith in swinging?". He/she/they didn't ask if we were believers or non-believers although that might be good topic for another thread.

[PSULioness 857]

agreatguy said:

In my experience on other boards and threads where this topic is brought up it inevitably derails and goes where this one is headed. It never ends well because there are too many belief systems and most everyone passionately believes theirs is the right one.

 

I do believe you are getting off topic and taking the thread to a place it wasn't intended to go, that being a debate on whether Deity exists and proving or disproving it in a logical way...It's a debate that has gone on for centuries and won't be solved on a swinger's board. Next we'll be arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or whether angels exist at all.

 

The direction the thread is going does nothing to further the question of how one deals with faith and swinging assuming faith is an issue. The topic of the thread is how we deal with our faith in a Deity while swinging. Your statements are important to faith in so far as whether or not faith is relevant. The OP makes it relevant by asking the question "How do you deal with your faith in swinging?". He/she/they didn't ask if we were believers or non-believers although that might be good topic for another thread.

 

You are correct that the thread as taken a left turn. Keeping in mind that each of us has different views and beliefs, only the original poster can answer how to deal with his beliefs. Every bible is up for interpretation and if you are a believer you interpret meanings the way you want to. Even those who profess to be very religious will interpret “rules” to fit their rules.

 

As that great poet John Lennon said, Imagine.

[GoldCoCouple 4,066]

Any God, Gods, Great Spirit, Higher Power, Supreme Being, or whatever have you that makes you a better person is something of value and is performing a greater purpose...I'm not going to say anything about how the God (or Gods, etc) that I may believe in is any better or worse then my God (or Gods, etc.). What does it matter? If your belief is to make you a better person, everything else is beside the point. Even if you don't believe in any God, as long as you try to be a better person then you are still doing 'the right thing'.

 

As for the Bible: there is a lot of things that people THINK are in the bible but aren't. Homosexuality is only mentioned a couple of times and never really 'condemned' (what commandment is that anyways?). Romans still had public baths that featured homosexuality and was not frowned upon during the time of Jesus. Polyamory is rampant in the old testament and seems to have just fell out of favor in the new testament, but is never 'condemned'. Living in cities didn't require multiple wives to provide offspring to help work with the nomadic farming and herding lifestyle. And what about the countless other books that were left out or later removed from the bible? What about translation and duplication errors? Do the research and see what you will find before just taking others 'word' for how things were or what things are 'true'.

 

Anyways, I'm not ever going to be the first to cast a stone. If you are better for what you believe, then you are a better person and that's good enough for me.

[Sawman 84]

In the Judeo-Christian ethic there are two great commandments. Swinging fits in there nicely.

[couplers 4,647]

Anyways, I'm not ever going to be the first to cast a stone.

That's good. It's always the adultress they aim for. I wear my scarlet A with pride.

[GoldCoCouple 4,066]

I wear my scarlet A with pride

 

 

High school flashback about a dirty book that wasn't dirty...thanks for the memory

[1st3way4fun 42]

This is one of my wife's (a Baptist preacher's daughter) biggest hangups on bringing a 3rd into the bedroom for a MFM. I'm okay with it based on the following.

 

I read a post from a Focus on the Family leader in which questions had been asked regarding what's scripturally acceptable between a husband and wife in the bedroom. The counselor laid out the following guidelines for Christians. If it's done out of love for the pleasure of the wife/couple then it's really nobody else's business. Toys, oral, maturation, etc. are all okay, as long as everything is mutually consensual and within the boundaries of a marriage between a husband and wife.

 

Where I disagree with them, and my wife's concern, comes from the adultery aspect. BUT...in the same thread they scripturally define adultery as sexual immortality, which they define as any activity OUTSIDE the boundaries of the marriage. By that logic, as long as it's within the boundaries of your marriage, is it still adultery/sexual immorality? I argue that it's not, because it's within the boundaries of a marriage.

 

They're okay with your wife having sex with the molded likeness of a real man, but not the actual penis of the very same man? That's not a logical thought...at all. So, I don't, maybe I'm right...maybe I'm wrong. All I know is that I absolutely love pleasuring my wife, and would love to attempt to double that pleasure for her. If I'm wrong, then I'm willing to answer for that. It's already a pretty long list, so what's one more? Lol

[couplers 4,647]

 

High school flashback about a dirty book that wasn't dirty...thanks for the memory

Without having to Google it, I remember the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale (thank you spell correct) as a candy ass punk. Wouldn't stand up for the woman he was screwing. Even as a girl I knew that he was the antithesis of what I wanted in a man.

[M1F2KTJ 473]

God wants you to be happy.

[couplers 4,647]

M1F2KTJ said:

God wants you to be happy.

 

That's not what the nuns told us. But then, I don't think many of them were happy.

[EastInWest 1,524]

That's not what the nuns told us. But then, I don't think many of them were happy.

 

I've quoted Mrs. E on this before, and will do so again, that if she had known what she was missing from listening to the high school nuns, she would have rather spent her college evenings on all fours in a men's locker room.

[older couple 132]

Forty-six years ago before my wife and I started our life of swinging, we discussed the religious side of it for her father who has passed away several years ago was a Baptist Deacon. My family were religious too. But I questioned so much of the Bible. Two were sex and nudity.

 

I had come to the conclusion that God really doesn't care if we go around naked or when or where or with who we have sex. She stuck with what she was taught, no swinging or nudity. So, I said to her, OK, I understood, but when she gets to heaven explain to God about his big mistake of making us naked. It was the most stupid thing he ever done. It's just shameful for us to be that way. It is so shameful and embarrassing that we have to make clothes to cover our ugliness and ask him what was he thinking when he decided for us to create life by putting eggs and a nest in woman and have man with a nasty penis he not only blows semen in her with to fertilize her eggs, but pee with too.

 

And the place he put her vagina is just wrong. It's too close to her butt and where she pees. It is just so humiliating. It is so violating. I said you just explain that to Him.

 

Now her breasts. Nope, all wrong. First her baby has to see it. Next it touches it and of all things it actually puts that nipple in its mouth and sucks and bites at least three of four times a day. That poor baby is just sinning up a storm. He has to figure out something else so us lying, disgusting sex maniacs called man, won't sin if we happen to touch or see them uncovered. Oh how sinful. He isn't all that perfect, now is He? Everything he has made is a sin. So we say.

 

I said I can't believe he would make us naked in his own image and punishes us to hell because it is a sin if we see others naked. I was taught that sex was nasty. You use it only to have babies with your wife. Count how many divorces there are today. I know many people who have been married as many times as five. The women and men. Meaning the man has had sex with five women and some father children by each wife and woman had sex with five men and bore children from each man and it is legal.

 

I know a man who divorced. He had two daughters 17 and 19. His wife lived with another man not married. Two years later he found out his wife and two daughters were pregnant at the same time, all from the same guy. He was pissed. He found out that it was legal. #1. The girls were of legal age. #2. They weren't blood kin to him or step children because he and their mother were not married. #3. All three were living in his house and he had a job and was feeding and clothing all three.

 

As far as the law was concerned, it was all legal and he was one hell of guy. But as far as my wife, she thought it over and began to think like me as far as religion. We tried some threesomes and slowly got into swinging and it was fun and we have been doing it ever since.

 

I just say that is my thoughts on the subject. I am not saying I'm right. I'm saying it works for us.

 

Lastly, I want to make it plain that I was teasing my wife when I said God messed up making us nude and how we reproduce. I believe there is a God but he isn't like we are led to believe. He isn't a genie. He doesn't behave the way we expect him too. I believe he acts anyway he wants. I think his system works very well even though my fellow humans want to change it sometimes for the better but sadly they destroy it too.

 

I feel that swinging and being a nudist is ok with my wife and I and it's not hurting anyone else, then it's our business not anyone else's.

[Cade# 22]

As individuals you have to make peace with the decisions you make in your life. I think we’ve both reconciled our faith with the lifestyle. One thing that we’ve learned after going through what we went through with our church, is that there’s a definite difference between religion and faith. Religion is the human church, and it’s run by humans, and all humans are imperfect. People have the right to judge, but that’s them, that’s not God.

[bbarnsworth 2,640]

My wife and I both attend church regularly. We don't find this to be hypocritical. As others have noted above, the Bible has plenty of cases of non-monogamy, and even advocates it.

 

For my part, I look at it this way; define what a 'crime' is, without using the rule of law. That question is almost always answered as being something that harms someone in some way, whether through physical harm, financial loss, what have you. In some way you are negatively affecting someone else against their wishes. That's a crime. A sin follows in the same path. Many of the ten commandments discuss crime. Now of course there's the "Thou shalt not commit adultery". But let's look at that; what does that mean? Adultery is cheating. It's taking something that isn't yours, going against the vows that you made before God, and hurting your spouse in the process. Swinging removes all of that; it takes away all of the negative of that. In swinging, you are having sex with someone whose spouse knows and approves. So, you're not taking something that's yours. If you and your wife agree to swing, you are modifying your vows. No vows broken, just changed. Lastly, since your spouse knows and approves, you are not cheating. Where, exactly, is the crime, the sin?

 

Now, some would say that swinging harms the soul, and destroys the Christian spirit. If that's the case, then why does the Bible affirm non-monogamy in so many places? If it were soul destroying, it would be universally criticized in the Bible. Yet, it isn't.

 

Swinging for my wife and I has made our already strong marriage even stronger. We are closer, even more communicative, more understanding, more giving, more appreciative of each other. In the process, we have also made many other people happier in their lives (at least, so far as we have ever seen). Nobody has been hurt. No souls have been destroyed.

 

In the grand scheme of things, if swinging is some crime/sin, there sure is a lack of proof that it is. Any sin is a sin, but if it is a sin there's a zillion other things that truly are destroying of lives, souls, and hopes. Swinging just doesn't measure up to that in any respect.

[bbarnsworth 2,640]

I mentioned [swinging] to someone recently and it was meet with shame.

 

I wanted to call out this portion of your post in particular.

 

People who are not swingers do not understand swinging. It's a complete unknown to them and generally incomprehensible. It is almost universally reviled. I would refrain from discussing swinging with anyone who is not a swinger. All you will get is negative. Sure, that means discussing swinging with only swingers, who will only give you positive. Take your pick I guess.

 

A story; there's a woman I know whom I dated many, many years ago. She and I were very close, and almost got married. The love remained, though the relationship itself faltered. She and I are still exceptionally close. My wife knew about her early on, and has always been in the loop about her. She lives quite some distance away now, and from time to time I've gone to visit her alone. My family has visited her as well. Nothing untoward has ever happened. Now, over the last couple of years my friend has been maintaining an on-again-off-again FWB situation with a guy she knows. This guy is married, and is cheating on his wife. He and his wife are living hours apart from each other, but are not separated; they are still together, and notionally husband/wife. Somewhat recently, sparks started to re-emerge between my friend and I. It's always been banter, and light hearted. But, it's there. We both feel it. My wife and I discussed it, and she was quite agreeable to me pursuing a physical relationship with my friend in addition to the love that was already there. So, I approached my friend about it and let her know that we are non-monogamous, and opened the door to having a physical relationship. She rejected it out of hand, with disdain, shock, sorrow. She could not imagine doing that with me, a married man who was playing with permission, but could imagine it (and was doing it) with a married man who didn't have permission.

 

Surprisingly, this is typical. Our society finds cheating spouses to be far, far, far more acceptable than spouses who are playing with permission. Go figure. But, that's informative in regards to discussing swinging with people who are not swingers.

[GoldCoCouple 4,066]

People have the right to judge, but that’s them, that’s not God.

 

Only God has the right to judge. Let he without sin cast the first stone.

[mandjneworleans 19]

We have been in the LS long enough to have met Judges, Elected Officials, Law Enforcement Officers, as well as leaders of business & industry. This includes Pastors and their wives that are so prim and proper elsewhere. All keep there swinging separate from their regular life. If you look at any congregation or business, you see many having multiple affairs. I used to date a woman that was fucking the Youth Minister of a major Baptist Church in her city. What we have to remember is that swingers are the only segment of society that do not cheat because we have permission.

[older couple 132]

I agree with you. I just don't believe he really cares if we are naked or who sees us naked or who we have sex with. All he wants is us to be kind, loving, caring, and protective of each other. He made us naked and said go multiply. If he is all perfect, and good, then why do we think sex and nudity is nasty and dirty? Just a thought.

older couple

[Fundamental Law 2,885]

The thread convolves faith--sets of beliefs that are not amenable to scientific verification -- and teachings, which can include sets of expected behaviors. Such convolution has been with us since the beginning of religion, which of course combines faith and teachings.

 

The teachings have typically been used to guide (read:control) the behaviors of the faithful. The control often breaks down--example Catholics and contraception--when there is an inconsistency between reality and teaching.

 

Controlling sexuality has been part of the teaching for many if not most major religions. It doesn't work. Example--Catholic clergy. Swinging is an accommodation that respects the institution of marriage while allowing for sexual variety. Swinging need never challenge faith, it inevitably challenges teaching.

 

What matters is how swinging affects your/your partner's life views. Divorcing monogamy from commitment (how's that for a brain twister) requires rejection of teaching but may in fact support your faith. If you wake up in the morning, embrace your partner, and say with meaning "I love you more than anyone else in the world", what else matters?