Being a swinger, do you still believe in God?

[wesharedou 15]

We were just wondering how many Swingers will admit to believing in GOD?

 

Of course most people will say they do, we just wondered how many, and also if most people will say that they can be a Christian, and still be a swinger..

 

Personally, we kinda feel like a couple of bad little kids that need a spanking, but in light of the despicable things that have went on for years like all the pedophiles in the Roman Catholic Church, we feel that swapping partners is net really that big of a deal.

 

We welcome all comments.

[biblonde 22]

YES we believe in GOD!!! and yes we are both christians!! No fear from us admitting it!!

[Brit_Pair 62]

Not surprisingly, this isn't the first time this particular subject has been raised:

 

Swinging and Religion

 

Swinging versus Religion

 

Christianity, Politics, and Swinging

 

are three such threads that might have some answers for you.

[froggyjenn80 15]

Even before swinging my husband and I were not religious, so in reality, swinging has nothing to do with our beliefs. My husband is pagan and I am agnostic.

 

We know swingers that are very very religious, and we think they are extremely hypocritical. Not the swinging, but the acts that happen during swinging functions (smoking, drinking, swearing, ect) All things that the church religiously disagrees with, upon sex with others.

 

America is just about the only country where being bisexual or with multiple partners is "bad" and looked down upon. Its just a personal preference of each. Religious or not.

 

We dont put down those that are, and expect the same respect with our beliefs.

 

Excellent question though!

~~Jenn

[lookin_forfun65 16]

Yes, I believe in God, no fear of admitting it.

[Spoomonkey 421]

Just because "church religiosity" generally looks down on things, does not mean that it is against the teachings of Christ...

 

Sorry - but I wanted to make the point that while we do not believe that a church or its leadership should decide how we (Mr and Mrs Spoomonkey) live our lives, we would not accept the same sort of judgement from those not deeply familiar with the tenants of our faith.

 

Yes - we are Christians, and yes we struggle with the dualities that our fundamental past has ingrained us with... But we feel that if God is spending his time stomping around heaven because me and the missus are enjoying the company of others, then His priorities are severely out of whack... And, frankly, as one who has read the Bible - not just as a hobby, but twelve years as a divinity student and ordained minister - I do not believe that the contemporary American church in any way resembles the faith that Christ extolled...

 

Sorry - I am not one who wants to mix religion and swinging, so I will bow out of this thread... I don't see the point, really, as there are folks who simplify Christianity with the stupidity they see on the "Old Time Gospel Hour". Faith is a deeply personal issue that can become emotional, divisive and - as history proves - the launching pad of much hatred and pain. But - even though God has been used as an excuse to condemn, destroy and oppress - I am unashamed of my personal love for the Jesus that I read about and believe in...

[Alura 2,773]

Quote

Originally posted by Spoomonkey

I do not believe that the contemporary American church in any way resembles the faith that Christ extolled...

 

Dito to this thought, Spoomonkey! I'd go so far as to say the church left the teachings of Christ when Saul of Tarsus took over.

 

If the teachings of Christ had continued to be taught, we would not have had the Crusades nor the Inquisition. Several other aspects of history would also not have happened, such as The Bloody Popes and the Dark ages. There would be no conflict in Northern Ireland. Priests wouldn't fuck kids.

 

I don't believe for a moment that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were "Just good friends."

 

Most preachers today, particularly those making mega-millions on Television (including a couple of Tulsans), in my opinion, have no idea what Jesus was trying to teach. If they did, they wouldn't be on TV talking about their faith.

 

I'm a Native American and a follower of the philosophies of The Sun God and Spider Woman, but I think Jesus Christ was one of the most extraordinary individuals to have lived.

[flassh 15]

Church, Christianity, Religion...Bla Bla Bla If one wants to read about what people believe then go to the source of the rhetoric

from Nietzsche himself:

 

"Christianity is called the religion of pity.-- Pity stands in opposition to all the tonic passions that augment the energy of the feeling of aliveness: it is a depressant. A man loses power when he pities. Through pity that drain upon strength which suffering works is multiplied a thousandfold. Suffering is made contagious by pity; under certain circumstances it may lead to a total sacrifice of life and living energy--a loss out of all proportion to the magnitude of the cause (--the case of the death of the Nazarene). This is the first view of it; there is, however, a still more important one. If one measures the effects of pity by the gravity of the reactions it sets up, its character as a menace to life appears in a much clearer light."

 

I hope this quotation, as hypnotic that it is, brings to the surface a perspective about what someone really means when they ask: Do you believe in God? I Do very profoundly, yet I wonder who cares what I believe ultimately. We live in the postmodern era with a dominant spiritual thrust to dismantle scientific authority on the one hand and religious authority of the other. Its present in everything and everywhere especially in higher educational systems. To read more of the passage follow this link:

 

http://users.compaqnet.be/cn127103/Nietzsche_the_antichrist/the_antichrist.htm

[Roxysbayou 20]

I still hold true to my faith.

 

I may be a hypocrit, I may not be.

 

I really don't care what others think about it.

 

Roxy

[fun_pairTX 26]

Swinging and belief in God are as unrelated as subjects as religion and God. Being Christian only involves attempting to live in accordance with the spirit and principles that Christ Himself lived. The way I see it, this also has nothing to do with organized religion.

[Brit_Pair 62]

Originally posted by froggyjenn80

America is just about the only country where being bisexual or with multiple partners is "bad" and looked down upon.

It may well be "worse" in the US, but rest assured, it's not much different here in the UK. The so-called 'quality' press often run scathing articles attacking swingers and those whose sexual practices 'deviate' from what the establishment would like to consider 'the norm', and right-of-centre politicians are constantly extolling the decline in moral virtues and behaviour in matters of sexuality.

 

And the chances are that - being true to their Victorian forefathers - most of those editors and politicians are probably wrapped up in leather and chains at the weekend, while their wives or mistresses get gang-banged.

 

Ah, the subtle art of hypocrisy!

[Brit_Pair 62]

Originally posted by fun_pairTX

Being Christian only involves attempting to live in accordance with the spirit and principles that Christ Himself lived. The way I see it, this also has nothing to do with organized religion.

Dito I'm not a religious person, and probably never will be. But I try to be Christian in the way I live and interact with those around me.

[Avantgarden38 18]

We belive in God as do most of the swingers we know. Here are some recent quotes from our last meeting:

 

"Oh my god, it's so big!"

 

"god this feels good!"

 

"O god. . . .oh god . . . oh, god . . . .oh, GOD!!"

 

"god. . . you came a lot!"

 

"This is so hot, god, I can't believe it!"

 

"Oh god, I'm cumming . . . .again!"

 

"god. . .I'm exhausted!"

[dayhiker 83]

Quote

Originally posted by Alura

If the teachings of Christ had continued to be taught, we would not have had the Crusades nor the Inquisition. Several other aspects of history would also not have happened, such as The Bloody Popes and the Dark ages. There would be no conflict in Northern Ireland. Priests wouldn't fuck kids.

 

Thought I'd add a little of my understanding of history.

 

I agree that following Christ would have prevented most of the above list including the wars in Europe that went on and on. Voltaire did an amazing job of changing Europe's view in his 70 yrs of writing. Yet Europe still went to war too often.

 

The Dark ages are being rethought and don't look as dark as the history books used to make out. But I see the "Dark ages" not being a result of Christianity as much the invasion of the Northern tribes such as the Goths that invited Rome over the years. They had no appreciation of education, the culture of the Greeks, nor of the law of Rome. The Church which had been brought up in an somewhat educated world brought these northern invaders into the church. But what to do with these new converts that didn't appreciate the education at the time? Instead of making schools for them, they set up a symbolic expression of Christianity to teach them. The candle light on the alter represented Christ as the light of the world. This resulted by the middle ages in half the priests not being able to read the words of Christ. Yet the Monks in the Monasteries gradually laid the foundation for Galileo and Newton to challenge the Aristotle world view and start the move toward our modern scientific world view.

 

The Crusades are being pictured quite one-sided today. The Muslims had forcibly converted Christians across north Africa until they were finally stopped in the Iberian peninsula. In the east the Muslims keep pushing for centuries. The wars fought on both of these fronts were wars and so very bloody. But it is my belief that if the Muslims had not been stopped we would all be Muslims today. And I for one wouldn't want my wife to have female circumcision and never experience an orgasm in her life like 80% of the women in Egypt. Or never to be able to go outside and feel the sun on their face like the majority of woman that live in Saudi Arabia.

 

Well, that's how I view history.

[wrnakedru 38]

Originally posted by fun_pairTX Swinging and belief in God are as unrelated as subjects as religion and God. Being Christian only involves attempting to live in accordance with the spirit and principles that Christ Himself lived. The way I see it, this also has nothing to do with organized religion.

 

Dito And amen!

 

Additionally, I only wish to add that I am insulted and incensed by any who would presume to think they know my beliefs or make judgement as to a perceived inconsistency.

 

My relationship with my God is personal and unless you are sitting at His right hand, you are in no position to pass judgement.

[davephx 32]

There is no conflict between BIBLICAL Christianity and swinging. The only conflict is with traditions that have no biblical basis.

 

In biblical times it was perfectly fine for a married man to have as many wives, concubines and "common" prostitutes as he could afford. Adultery was only wrong for a married women since it violated the husbands ownership of his wife. But a married man could have as many sex partners as he wished as long as they were single (not owned by another man). Adultery was a property crime not a sex crime.

 

The only exception was of the elders of the Churchs of Timothy and Titus could only have one wife. We don't know why but it may have been there were lots of Gentiles in those Church's that were uncomfortable with the Hebrew way of many wives and concubines.

 

We have zillions of ministers that agree and have a huge biblical section at http://www.libchrist.com and extensive bibliography.

 

I use to be as conservative Christian as you could be. I was active in Bible Study Fellowship, Christian Business Men's Committee, elder in a conservative Church. More than 20 years ago I set out to prove my conservative traditional beliefs correct vs some more liberal views. But with years of study I had to admit that I had been lied to about sexual issues by the Church traditions that I found by extensive research and prayer simply had no biblical basis.

 

We continue to have over 2000 folks a day visit http://www.libchrist.com with no sexy pictures just a lot of information that has been helpful for so many swingers and others around the world since 1998.

 

Dave in Phoenix

Liberated Christians

[turbine1999 15]

I my self do beleive that there is a GOD. I was raised as a catholic and went to catholic school all 12 years.

 

I know this may sem heavy but I look at it this way. GOD has allowed all of us to do what we want and when we want to do it.

 

Swinging to us is not for sex but for the fun and the friendship. Since we have been swinging for over 10 years our realationship has grown strong. As we tell new couples that we come in contact with, we always say that sex is fun, but love is us. We both love each other very much and no mater what we do with swinging we both know that we will always be with each other, and that is what we think GOD enjoys.

[Vjklander 138]

I dumped the god myth a looooooooong time ago. I will tolerate anyone's decision to believe, as long as they tolerate my decision not to. That said, anyone who gets in my face about religion is fair game for my best less-than-tactful diatribe.

[turbine1999 15]

I fully agree, don't get me wrong, I may believe but I don't preach.

[velbuzz 17]

Aren't these the things not to bring up at a cocktail party for fear of disrupting the pleasant time?

 

Yet I am again impressed with the thoughtfulness and tolerance that is exhibited by my fellow Swing Life members.

 

I challenge anyone to find a post on this thread that is mean and not to topic. Goes to show we swingers may have indeed learned the lessons regarding how to treat one another.

 

'nuff said

 

ps I believe there is a force out there call it God if you will and I believe in the teachings of Christ

[SluttyWife 17]

We're Agnostic which means we are unsure if there is a God and if there we're not sure which way to turn to as there would be no real way as we see it, to determine who he or she might be.

 

I have an alternative and that is believing in love. Sounds like something to believe in and something every major religion in the world has some

sort of teaching on.

 

So swinging could be a way to that. It certainly forces you to deal with issues that would not otherwise surface.

 

[J5T 15]

If you are a Christian, then adultery is a sin according to christian belief - 'Thou shall not commit adultery.'

 

Webster's defines adultery as ' voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman not his wife (and vice versa). Although I myself do not believe swinging is sinful - it does fit the definition of adultery - thus, I suppose, it should be considered a sin in the christian sense. One can argue all year that consensual sex between married people does not constitute adultery - but in fact, by definition, swinging is adultery.

 

It seems like most Christian swingers convince themselves that it is not - that the 'Thou shall not commit adultery' commandment is intended for someone else and they are exempt. Like I said, I don't think swinging is sinful at all - I believe it's a healthy outlet for all our natural, biological desires and has nothing to do with religion. I simply find it funny, if not hypocritical, for people to thump their bibles then turn around and break a commandment. But then again, there are 'hard-core' Christians, 'middle of the road' Christians, and 'I'm barely a christian' Christians - and the religion is interpreted a billion ways.

 

It's dilemmas such as these that helped me to conclude that religion is man-made, God may exist but he sure as hell doesn't answer prayers, and the scriptures are an excellent and moral outline on how to live a good life. Personally, I find it sort of despairing that so many people blindly follow this faith - and the extent at which they worship - it's downright brainwashing! But, each to their own. Like Vjklander said 'I have no problem with somebody being religious, just as long as they have no problem with me NOT being religious.'

[davephx 32]

This is the typical problem with today's Christians. Take a modern definition of adultery and apply it to biblical times.

 

See my earlier message. In biblical times adultery was ONLY wrong for a married women, NEVER a married man as long as the other women was single.

 

Men had many wives, concubines, "common" prostitutes and it was NEVER wrong.

 

What relevance is the fact that 2000 years later we have a different definition of adultery? Webster didn't live in biblical times.

 

Examples of Polyamory (actually polygamy), adultery and fornication in the Bible.

 

Today in our cultural equal polyamory relationships are even more in line with Christ's teaching of love than biblical cultural where male dominated polygamy was the norm.

 

Abraham had two wives; Isaac only one; Jacob had four; David "had his hundreds" and Solomon had "his thousands."

 

A man could marry (literally to "become the master of the woman") as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.

 

Genesis 16: Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar. Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command.

 

What could be clearer than the Song of Songs, celebrating Solomon's love for a new woman? Verse 6:8 tells us that at the time Solomon was celebrating love with this woman, he had 60 wives and 80 concubines and "young women past counting." Concubines were often for breeding and the other young women, too numerous to count, were also available for his sexual pleasure. Eventually Solomon ended up with 700 wives, 300 mistresses and never a word was spoken that their was anything wrong with having sex with all these women.

 

In OT times concubinage was an official status. God rebuked Solomon not for polygyny and the concubines, but for the fact that many of his wives were non-Hebrew and these foreign wives brought idols in for worship from their pagan cultures, which was contrary to God's teaching.

 

Esther 2:17 "And the king loved Esther above all the women (concubines), and she obtained grace and favour in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown upon her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti. (his disobedient wife)

 

David

One of the greatest figures of the bible, King David, not only had a multitude of wives but many concubines as well. And he was considered PERFECT in "all" things by God. Not some, or most, but ALL. His many sexual partners was not what was meant by adultery back then.

 

1Ki 11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.

 

What is interesting is that David was "perfect" yet he did commit adultery with Bathsheba but only because Bathsheba was married. She was not one of his own women. The other 7 wives and 17 concubines that David was sleeping with were given to him by God as a blessing!

 

It keeps amazing me how people can claim adultery or sex with singles is Biblically wrong. Clearly adultery only applied to married women and never to a married man with a single women. It was a property issue -the man owned his wives and their sexual rights. Women had no such sexual rights over their husbands. Today women simply have the same right of sexual enjoyment and options that men have always had. This is certainly in line with Christ's teaching that the only "rule" is the rule of love. Today polyamory relations are based on love and equality between men and women - clearly Christ would very much approve.

 

God seems to have been quite pleased with what some Christians would consider adultery. But they have no basis for attacking polyamory or swinging (responsible, consensual non-monogamy). The bible never suggested it was wrong for a man to have many wives and fornicate with concubines. It was only wrong for a married woman since her husband owned her sexuality. Again today's polyamory equal, no ownership relationships are based on love which is what Christ taught.

 

Indeed, both Judaism and Christianity were originally much more tolerant about matters sexual than they are today. That changed dramatically when St. Augustine, after years of personal lewdness and licentiousness, declared that "Nothing is so much to be shunned as sex relations." He certainly did not preach what he practiced!

 

Then Judaism became much more puritanical about 800 years ago when monogamy was instituted in order not to offend or scandalize the Christian communities in which Jews then lived.

 

The late Rabbi Abraham Feinberg wrote a book about 20 years ago, "Sex and the Pulpit," in which he argues that The Church - meaning "organized religion" - controls sex, and by controlling sex controls us. How true!

 

This control becomes a form of slavery to dogma and is what Bob Marley was referring to when he coined one of his famous lines, "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery..."

[wrnakedru 38]

I do not consider myself to be religious.

 

Like most others, I have noticed hypocrites along life's path - IN churches, and away.

 

I do believe I have a strong and firmly held spiritual relationship with my God in the manner of coming to Him as does a child to a Father.

 

I believe God has more knowledge than I do. I believe prayers are answered. Sometimes God says 'No'.

 

I am not a Christian because I am perfect.

 

I am a Christian because I am a sinner.

 

The burden of, and price for, my sins was paid in my behalf over 2000 years ago. I may be unworthy of that act, but it is what saves me nevertheless.

 

I do not believe all should believe as I do. That is their choice. This is mine.

[J5T 15]

You make some excellent points Dave! Sounds like you have investigated this issue quite a bit. The biblical quotes you provided are quite effective in conveying the fact that, in biblical times, married men were allowed to have sex with single women (but a married woman could not have sex with anyone but her husband - and if she did it was sinful). Then St. Augustine screwed it all up and the church brought the hammer down on any extra-marital affairs.

 

Now we live in 2004 - with all the 'new rules' that the church conjured up out of midair - and according to them, now, it is a sin to have any extra-marital affair. It would have been great to live back in Solomon's days - but alas, Big Brother is watching. Quite honestly, God should have nothing to do with a man or a woman's sexual relationships - and neither should the church. But, mankind - being the organized control freaks that they are - created monogamy and forced it upon the masses and here we are sneaking around trying to live our swinger lifestyles in the modern era without anyone outside the loop finding out - why? Because it is frowned upon - it is considered a sin by most Christians.

 

Since we live now, in the 21st century, and Webster still is not alive but long dead, and all the old adultery rules have been upgraded to new adultery rules, applying today's definition of adultery to the topic of swinging is absolutely relevant. I suppose a christian, if they feel so inclined, can choose as they will as to which doctrine to believe and follow - the ancient doctrine (adultery by married men with single women - good) or the modern doctrine (adultery by anyone - bad). I suppose we all must develop our own micro-religions - a religion that best fits our own philosophies and lives.

 

The levels of difference within a common religion create misunderstandings between numerous issues - but there are two sides to every issue - those for it and those against it - and when it comes to swinging - the "those against it' crowd highly outnumber the 'those for it' crowd. As time goes on, I believe that we (church included) will once again be free to express ourselves sexually without condemnation - but until then we must fight the good fight. Like the lyrics of Dylan, 'Time's they are a changin.'

[davephx 32]

J5T said

applying today's definition of adultery to the topic of swinging is absolutely relevant. I suppose a christian, if they feel so inclined, can choose as they will as to which doctrine to beleive and follow - the ancient doctrine (adultery by married men with single women - good) or the modern doctrine (adultery by anyone - bad).

 

To me this seems totaly unChristian, to make up new laws based on Mans ideas that has no biblical basis. Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ and traditions of his time. There is no "modern doctrine" other than lies of twisting what is biblical.

 

True Christianity doesn't change based on new doctrine, other than if certain things were totally cultural. Jesus taught that a Christian has the freedom in Christ to be free from the legalism of Hebrew times in various areas. But there is no new modern doctrine that is valid in my view that is more restrictive than in biblical times. Modern doctrine is nothing but lies of translations of ancient doctrine in my view. Christ's teachings on which Christianity is based does not change. And Christ never said a word about any sexual restrictions.

As a serious biblical Christian it is clear there is absolutely nothing biblically wrong with swinging, polyamory or being as God created people to be, homosexual, bi or heterosexual. The false lies of traditions that have no biblical basis are the abomination based again on lies. Many Christians follow what the bible actually said as understood in the culture in which it was written vs the lies of traditions, even admitted by the NIV committee as an example. The issue in bible translation is traditions vs "dynamic equivalency" . Are the lies of traditions more important than what the bible actually said in the original language and context is the issue. Many ministers and theologians are on the side of biblical facts instead of the lies of traditions regarding sexual issues.

 

We gave a huge biblical section that looks more seriously at these issues and every sex related passage that is lied by sex negative traditions at

http://www.libchrist.com/bible/contents.html

 

Also see my background as I use to be very traditional conservative until I took my Christianity and the bible more seriously. See

http://www.libchrist.com/background/founders.html

 

And just a small sample of the zillions of ministers and theologians that write in support of biblical honestly at

http://www.libchrist.com/christiansin/contents.html

 

And a sample bibliography at http://www.libchrist.com/bible/books.html

 

How Sex Was Made A Sin

 

A huge number of other Christians who now are enjoying more open relationships, more living in Christ's love. But many have struggled with exactly the same issues that many who visit our site are concerned about. Centuries of indoctrination by traditional Christian teachings are hard to overcome. But the sex negative traditions clearly have no biblical basis.

 

Jews (the group out of which Jesus preached) do not have the same sexual hang ups that today's traditional Christians (vs Biblical) have. They view sex in a much more wholesome way than most Christians. Christians borrow their negative view of sex from the Greeks and also from St. Augustine who over-reacted to his previous sexual progligacy with his ascetic responses that mad sex totally evil even when it was used in marriage for sexual reasons. It was only valid if it was for the purpose of procreation. Now, if that is the only use you make of sex then you are in sympathy with St. Augustine. That is a sorry place to put your loyalty.

 

Regarding Christ, I believe that his silence indicates a wholesome acceptance of Jewish openness about the subject. Christians(?) are too often in tune with negativism and not open to honesty about their own sexuality and, as a result, so many of them end up in deviancy. Sex is not a disease. It is a gift from God. That does not mean that we use it carelessly. Many traditional Christians have a lot to work out on a psychological level sexual issues, before they can engage in dialogue with honest, searching Christians eager to find solutions to the errors created by organized religious fanatics.

 

The Emperor Constantine (354-430 A.D.) was perhaps the world's most important convert to the new religion of Christianity. Christianity was perhaps the only thing left to try to hold the Roman Empire together. While the political empire fell in the next century, the Church stepped in as the new central authority. Threats of burning in hell were even more effective than the army for controlling large and diverse populations.

 

Augustine was a primary theological shaper of thought and went so far as to argue that sex was sinful even within wedlock unless the specific purpose was always conception! This reflects the need at the time for many more children. Infant mortality was very high and the economic and political structures were based on families. Likewise, clerical celibacy was in part shaped by fear that offspring would fight over Church property.

 

Thanks to widespread illiteracy - or apathy -whatever the Church said was now law. Intercourse was no longer natural and good; sex was dirty and only for procreation. Celibacy was the new standard for the clergy. And it was a great money maker! If you sinned by enjoying sex, you must come to the Church for repentance, which required a donation to demonstrate your faith. What a perfect way for the Church to raise capital; make everyone a sinner because of their innate sexual desires and then offer to absolve them for a sizeable donation.

 

The sexual morality of Christianity did not come from Jesus. It instead came from later Christians whose main interest was the control of the masses. It is important to recognize the source of religious dogma about sex - when and where it came from - and put it in perspective in present time and circumstances.

 

Making polygamy a "sin" was a slow process. It was even common for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses. Pope Gregory II in a decretal in 726 said "when a man has a sick wife who cannot discharge the marital function, he may take a second one, provided he looks after the first one." Later, with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance, Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree that offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could not inherit anyway).

 

In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality (multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times), but it was about MONEY!

 

Polygyny (many wives for 1 man) was the norm due to the male-dominated society and the fact a man's status was determined by the number of children he fathered. Today, women should enjoy equal rights and sex can be for pleasure and an expression of sincere love. This makes polyamory a more equal and loving lovestyle.

 

For much more detailed historic information on how sex became a sin see:

http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm

 

The Liberated Christian Sexual Ethic

We affirm that our sexuality is a natural gift from God. It should not be artificially restricted by regulation. God honors a free sexual expression that seeks the enjoyment and good of the each person, and the glory to God as He participates with us in this glorious aspect of living and loving others, ourselves and God. In our scriptural understanding, a New Testament biblical argument cannot be made against most cases of consensual sexual pleasure sharing, whether premarital, marital, or postmarital.

 

Negative cases can be made only if the parties involved are not functioning within Christian love guidelines, but are rather using one another for their own selfish gratification or are doing harm, physical or psychological, to their sexual partners or to other parties who are involved. Among the sexual practices which would be harmful would be the careless disregard for sexually transmitted diseases or contraceptive protection.

[J5T 15]

Excellent. You make the best argument I've heard by far regarding Swinging vs. Sinning. I absolutely agree with you - although I am not well educated on the history behind how sex became sinful. I knew the basic history. I will look up those sites you posted and check them out. More people should do so.

 

I agree, it is totally unchristian to make up new laws based on mans perceptions rather than based on proper biblical influence. But the fact remains - man did do it - and a lot of people are snowballed over it. My favorite - the Sabbath Day. Man has made the Sabbath Day Sunday - but in biblical reality the Sabbath Day is Saturday. Absolutely amazing that such a thing can be allowed! I can accept that there are a lot of ministers and theologians that follow biblical fact - but of the small circle of people I have come to know, they simply do not dwell that hard on the fallacies of modern bible preaching - they believe that if the preacher says it, it must be true - no second thoughts.

 

I have always had a huge problem with faith - it has such a weak basis - no tangible expression - without the bible then what is Christianity? Without the Koran what is Islam? Etc Etc. Books are written by men, men lie, men like money and fame, men are stupid - would God really entrust man to relay his words properly?! How could he? - He knows how easily turned a man's objectives become - how man can conjure up dreams and ideas at whim and present them as fact.

 

I believe in God - but I do not believe in scriptures. Thus, in my world, sex has nothing to do with religion - be it biblical times or modern. However, for millions of Christians - it weighs heavy - and that my friend is a damn shame. A lot of people do have to work out their sexual issues on some psychological level, but will they? Or will they take the easy road and follow modern doctrine. This is what makes me mad. I wish people were not so apathetic and ignorant. Sure there are a lot of smart people but there are too many that do not take advantage of it.

 

I'm not an expert, but it doesn't take an expert to figure out that swinging is not a sin. It doesn't take an expert to figure out that if you eat swine you will not burn in hell. Or if your born in Africa to non-christian parents and you die directly after birth without ever being exposed to christian ritual - that you won't burn in hell. Christians have some messed up ideology - they are so pompous and one-track - although I believe that trend is changing. I would like to travel 100 or so years into the future and see the way religion will be viewed then.

 

Good points Dave, I've gained a new perspective on the issue. I'll check out those sites.

[2New2it 19]

I can't look at the stars, or the flight of a hummingbird, or the beauty of a sunset and believe the universe is a random event. I believe there is order in what some see as khaos. I'm not so arrogant to believe humans are the pinnacle of intelligence, so yes, I believe, but not in the orthodox ways.

 

My favorite bumper sticker of all time: God and I get along fine, it's his fan clubs I have problems with.

[BradAndJanet 70]

Quote

Originally posted by SluttyWife

We're Agnostic which means we are unsure if there is a God and

if there we're not sure which way to turn to as there would be no real way as we see it, to determine who he or she might be.

 

I have an alternative and that is believing in love. Sounds like something to believe in and something every major religion in the world has some sort of teaching on.

Wow, yeah, that about describes it for us too. Of course that doesn't prevent me from sending good thoughts out into the ether, just in case. Ya never know...

 

We believe that the important thing is for us to help each other out. I'd call that love, yes.

[EternallySingle 32]

The idea of sex being a sin is based on those two principals, and that is the problem.

 

Committing adultery comes from the phrase adulterating a mixture, which means to add impurities which weaken it. It also meant to dishonor a contract long before it was applied to marriage. So, to commit adultery is to weaken your marriage contract by a specific behavior, even if that behavior is going out every night drinking with your buddies, shopping for frivolous items that take money away from purchasing food and paying bills, or arguing about frivolous disagreements like what T.V. show to watch or if the dishes have been washed and put away properly.

 

To covet another's spouse meant wanting to break up another family, even if you didn't act on it, and neglecting your responsibility to your own family in the process. in this way, prostitutes could be seen as being covetous, because they would want the money of a man who needed that money to provide for his family.

 

Since most swingers neither want to break up another's family, neglect their responsibilities to their families, or dishonor their spiritual contract to be faithful to one another, it is hard to believe that swinging could be a sin.

 

but that's just what I believe based on what I've learned about those two commandments.

[Spoomonkey 421]

I would say that anyone who has chosen to have a sexually liberal marriage AND has a faith background of any sort, has undoubtedly run these issues through their own personal gauntlets. If a person has honestly come to a sense of comfort with the co-existence of faith and non-monogamy, then my assumption about that person is that they have looked as deeply at the issue as they need to.

 

The stuff at libchrist.com was helpful for me early on, but like anything in the world, it still leaves you with the personal responsibility of making the decision about what is or is not truth. Far too many Christians approach their faith without accepting that responsibility - and thus they do follow blindly the lead of those who are using religion to further denominational thought or agendas. I think it painfully obvious that most Christians in this lifestyle have - in fact - taken on the responsibility of their personal faiths - and that says much about the depth of those faiths.

 

What I find ironic is that during this discussion, it has not been the Christians who have voiced intolerance. Most Christians have stated their faith (answering the original question as it was presented) and then have moved on. I think this seems to buck the concept that Christians are aggressively evangelistic. At least in this forum they have not been. And - I have been encouraged by the posts of those who do not share a Christian or Christian-like faith. Most have - again - answered the question as it was presented.

 

I mean, aren't Christians supposed to sit around judging folks and telling them how very hot it is in hell? Hmmm... Another stereotype proves to be false...

 

But - while the Christians state their faith and ignore some obvious baiting that has popped up on this thread - a few have taken the opportunity to tell Christians that they are:

 

1. Hypocritical

2. Brain-washed

3. Believers in a "myth" (quite belittling tripe, IMHO)

 

...among other comments...

 

Of course, those who have said those things finish their posts with "but we support your right to believe what you want, as long as you don't tell us what to believe." But - not once on this thread has anyone told an atheist, agnostic, pagan, whatever, what they need to believe. Christians - at least Christians in the lifestyle - don't appear interested or inclined to do such a thing. So why are the panties in a bunch? Why are some backed into a corner, of their own design, warning that:

 

"anyone who gets in my face about religion is fair game for my best less-than-tactful diatribe."

 

It seems to me that the mere mention of religion gets some folks ready to rumble - or at least brings out the worst in some folks who are likely great people when this is left off of the table.

 

I agree that I tolerate anyone's beliefs or lack thereof, as long as they tolerate mine. Live and let live, right? But after reading a few posts, I would expand it a bit - don't tell me I'm a idiot for my faith (someone who can't "dump the god myth") and I will not tell you you're an idiot - for whatever reason I may think you are. Deal?

[DragonsLair 26]

As a swinger do I believe in GOD.

 

I don't ever remember saying anything was wrong with having sex with as many people as possible if all are willing and your partner agrees.

 

I say live long and happy lives and just think about all the good sex your going to have with all those scantily clothed cherubs up here in Heaven.