Swingers - Swapping Partners

[sunlover1]

Floaty,

I do not depend on my own understanding...I am being renewed by the transforming of my mind (Romans 12:2).

BEING,... this is an ongoing process.
You WILL change your mind about many things as years go by,
well, as long as you're open to God's Spirit.

The indwelling Holy Spirit is my guide.

Obviously we all claim this too.

We disagree on God's definition of adultery.

You BETCHA!
Somebody is either deliberately 'twisting' Scripture (like the snake;
did God REALLY mean it that way?) to conform to their lusts
of the flesh.. OR
Someone is deliberately 'twisting' Scripture to condemn thier brothers
liberty in Christ.
OR
Someone just doesnt get it, and thinks they're hearing God.

But it's gotta be "the other guy"

 

[JohnT]

No one is ever required to post or even to read any thread. If what is being said in a thread gives you offense, then the choice is easy - do not read that thread. If everyone got their panties all in a wad over every discussion that they were "offended" by and shut down every thread, there would not be much left to discuss, now would there?

Anyone that came to read this thread knew what is was about before they even opened it. If you came in here and got offended and are still here, then you are just looking to be offended or to impose your will on others that want to talk about fringe subjects. With so many threads, surely there is one that you will not be offeded by reading.

I can understand threads filled with obscenity being shut down, but this is obviously a thread of interest to some since it is now 38 pages long. It has been filled with good discussion. Some name calling and anger, but generally good discussion. I think that it is about to end on its own anyway - most everything that could be said in discussion has been said already and we are starting to get redundant. I thank everyone for their participation.

Grace and peace.

Pastor to pastor:

What sort of nonsense are you spewing there?

Why do you take the subject of this EVIL to be subjective when the very thought of it is offensive to a just, righteous and holy God?

Can you not see the bold faced evil that the TROLL instigated, and then blame the reader and the protester(s) for calling evil, good? I am not suggesting any ulterior motives on your part, but I fail to see how a shepherd of God's flock can not howl in righteous indignation-driven outrage in the face of evil.

If this were a matter of

[anyone getting]their panties all in a wad over every discussion that they were "offended" by and shut down every thread,

then I could understand. HOWEVER this is the same sort of abominations that were practiced at the Temple of Diana, and in Baal worship, both of which are deservedly condemned in the Bible.

By your failure to CONDEMN this practice and supporting a thread based on it, you are essentially CONDONING it among the people of God. How on earth can you face your congregation on Sunday knowing that you are not condemning the same things that God hates?

Yes, this is a strong rebuke. I am doing as one pastor to another pastor in hopes that you will see the error of your ways, and repent. If you choose not to do so, I pray that you will surrender your pulpit; it is THAT serious.

Shalom,

John T

 

[wkonwtrtom]

BEING,... this is an ongoing process.
You WILL change your mind about many things as years go by,
well, as long as you're open to God's Spirit.


Obviously we all claim this too.



You BETCHA!
Somebody is either deliberately 'twisting' Scripture (like the snake;
did God REALLY mean it that way?) to conform to their lusts
of the flesh.. OR
Someone is deliberately 'twisting' Scripture to condemn thier brothers
liberty in Christ.
OR
Someone just doesnt get it, and thinks they're hearing God.

But it's gotta be "the other guy"

Thank you sonlover for being open to the possibility that someone has twisted the scriptures to condemn liberty and to put their brothers in bondage. There has not been much of that recognition by some in this thread. That has been the basis for most of what a few of us have had to say. If the scriptures have been twisted as described in some of the posts, then many are in man-made bondage. And that would be just as sinful as participating in a forbidden act.

 

[chingchang]

BEING,... this is an ongoing process.
You WILL change your mind about many things as years go by,
well, as long as you're open to God's Spirit.

I HAVE changed my mind about many things as the years have gone by...being open to God's Spirit.

You BETCHA!
Somebody is either deliberately 'twisting' Scripture (like the snake;
did God REALLY mean it that way?) to conform to their lusts
of the flesh.. OR
Someone is deliberately 'twisting' Scripture to condemn thier brothers
liberty in Christ.
OR
Someone just doesnt get it, and thinks they're hearing God.

But it's gotta be "the other guy"

It is necessary to study the OT in depth to construct a Godly sexual ethic. When you do that, you'll notice many things. One thing...for example...is that the ONLY way a man could commit adultery in the OT was by taking another man's wife (property). King David's sexual escapades is our prime example...but there are MANY. So...you contend that I am wrong...but you understanding of Godly sexual ethics are biased to what you've been taught and how society has programmed you. Let God program you via his Holy Spirit and you'll see things differently.

Hugs,
CC

 

[Zecryphon]

Originally, back in April, it was shut down, and inexplicably re opened by a 19 years-old mod. Check the first pages if you do not believe me.

That is ANOTHER reason why I protest. Evidently someone saw nothing wrong with it, if you can believe that.

When it comes to CF, nothing surprises me anymore.

 

[chingchang]

Pastor to pastor:

What sort of nonsense are you spewing there?

Why do you take the subject of this EVIL to be subjective when the very thought of it is offensive to a just, righteous and holy God?

Can you not see the bold faced evil that the TROLL instigated, and then blame the reader and the protester(s) for calling evil, good? I am not suggesting any ulterior motives on your part, but I fail to see how a shepherd of God's flock can not howl in righteous indignation-driven outrage in the face of evil.

If this were a matter of then I could understand. HOWEVER this is the same sort of abominations that were practiced at the Temple of Diana, and in Baal worship, both of which are deservedly condemned in the Bible.

By your failure to CONDEMN this practice and supporting a thread based on it, you are essentially CONDONING it among the people of God. How on earth can you face your congregation on Sunday knowing that you are not condemning the same things that God hates?

Yes, this is a strong rebuke. I am doing as one pastor to another pastor in hopes that you will see the error of your ways, and repent. If you choose not to do so, I pray that you will surrender your pulpit; it is THAT serious.

Shalom,

John T

Romans 14 good sir! Read...

 

[Zecryphon]

Romans 14 good sir! Read...

Romans 14 talks about differences of behavior in believers, but all of the behaviors listed are done to honor and glorify God. Swapping sex partners does not glorify God in any way, so you really can't use Romans 14 as a justification for this behavior and you also can't use it to admonish someone who is rightly rebuking a brother who has fallen into serious error. JohnT has done nothing wrong and for you to insinuate he has, is as ridiculous as this entire thread. Go read 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. Then go read the seventh commandment. Romans 14 trumps neither.

 

[sunlover1]

Thank you sonlover for being open to the possibility that someone has twisted the scriptures to condemn liberty and to put their brothers in bondage. There has not been much of that recognition by some in this thread. That has been the basis for most of what a few of us have had to say. If the scriptures have been twisted as described in some of the posts, then many are in man-made bondage. And that would be just as sinful as participating in a forbidden act.

I adamently disagree with your view, sir. But if something were presented
that changed my mind, it wouldnt be the first time.
So far, my belief in "one man one woman, no other partners" has not
even been rmotely challenged.
But to me, sex, as MUCH as it feels great, is just so low on my list of
priorities. I dont even think it's existent in Heave at all.
Do you know the main 'reason' for marriage (sex)?
I mean scripture proof...

I HAVE changed my mind about many things as the years have gone by...being open to God's Spirit.

Amen, me too.

It is necessary to study the OT in depth to construct a Godly sexual ethic.

To be honest, I really have never done so.
Do you realise that marriage is a blood covenant?

When you do that, you'll notice many things. One thing...for example...is that the ONLY way a man could commit adultery in the OT was by taking another man's wife (property).

I have no idea what you mean, but you're welcome to post some
proof ... still, we arent OT servants, we're NT sons now.

King David's sexual escapades is our prime example...but there are MANY.

How's that?

So...you contend that I am wrong...

I do indeed.
I think that you're deceived actually.
I've been deceived many times, it can happen to you too, no?

but you understanding of Godly sexual ethics are biased to what you've been taught and how society has programmed you.

I try to REprogram what's been put in there actually. I prefer to live
in liberty by the Spirit of God.
I've been studying Scripture for close to 30 years and have come
to some conclusions based on that.

Let God program you via his Holy Spirit and you'll see things differently.

So far no dice, but you're welcome to offer some sort of proof.
I do realise that Solomon had many wives and concubines...

What do you do with Jesus' Words about not so much as "lusting" after
another woman?

Thanks,
sunlover

 

[Hentenza]

WHY IS THIS THREAD PERMITTED TO CONTINUE???

It serves no Christ-honoring practice.

It is also contrary to the civil laws.

There is no redeeming purpose of the group he quotes, or in the act itself.

It is CONTRARY to everything that is Christian.

The thread started 9 months ago by a 19 year old TROLL who only posted twice on this site, and those posts were the OP, and a follow up. (That fits the definition of a troll)

The fact that it has continued for nine months exhibits a profound lack of judgment on the part of those who re-opened the thread and permit its continuance on an ostensibly CHRISTIAN board.

Finally, a failure to act will demonstrate a moral corruption of some people who see nothing wrong with this thread.

If this is permitted to continue shall I begin a thread on beastiality?
Oh wait!! There IS a member of this forum who has a name "Animal Sox Act" who joined September 24, 2008. Let's let him post a new thread.

Hi John,

The thread was closed in April because we needed to ascertain if this topic could be discussed in CP&E. The consensus at the time was that it was not a banned topic and it was not off topic to the forum. CF is not a sanitized website and our intention is not to stifle conversation. I do agree with you that this topic is controversial. Also, I am taken aback that there are some that have actually debated from the acceptance side of this topic since to most Christians this would ba a no brainer. If you want to continue this conversation with me just pm me.

Please do not start a thread on bestiality since that is a topic that we will not allow. As far as "Animal Sox Act", there isn't such a member. I did a search though both the site's member list and modcp with no results. Please pm me any info regarding this member that you have because, if there is such a member, I will ban him immediately.

 

[chingchang]

Romans 14 talks about differences of behavior in believers, but all of the behaviors listed are done to honor and glorify God. Swapping sex partners does not glorify God in any way, so you really can't use Romans 14 as a justification for this behavior and you also can't use it to admonish someone who is rightly rebuking a brother who has fallen into serious error.

You say "swapping sex partners does not glorify God". That is a statement of opinion. Anything can glorify God if it is not sin and we give thanks for it. God created sex to be enjoyed...not controled by man-made religion. I'm not saying believers use Romans 14 to justify that behavior...I'm just saying you can't judge it. The key to this entire argument...besides Romans 14, Galations 5:1, and and understanding of the "Royal Law" is to undertake a study of OT sexual ethics. God legislated against specific sex acts in the OT. Adultery was defined in the OT by what it included and did not include. Study these things...then let us come back and reason together.

Hugs,
CC

 

[chingchang]

To be honest, I really have never done so.

Thanks for your honesty. I hadn't either at one point and I believed as you. I'm not a scholar...but many Biblical Scholars have studied this and published their findings. Search for William Countryman (as one example) on Amazon.com.

I have no idea what you mean, but you're welcome to post some
proof ... still, we arent OT servants, we're NT sons now.

I have already posted 'proof' (if-you-will). Go back and look at ALL of my posts in this thread and other threads in this forum related to sex.

What do you do with Jesus' Words about not so much as "lusting" after
another woman?

Now THAT is a great question. Is there anything wrong with lust? Can I 'lust' after my own wife? Was it a sin if I lusted after my wife before we were married? Who was Jesus talking to (context)? How is coveting related to what Jesus was talking about? What are the implications given OT law? I can think of a few more...but if you can answer these questions you'll get the answer that you are looking for. Clue: God designed men and women to be sexually attracted and aroused by each other. If he did not...then his command to "...and multiply" wouldn't work so well.

Thanks,
sunlover

Sunlover...thanks for your honesty and for being nice to me!

Free Hugs!
CC

 

[Nadiine]

Her definition of adultery is conformed to God's. Jesus said that anyone who looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28). So if just looking at a woman who is not your wife is considered adultery, how much worse must it be to sleep with one to whom you are not married? So what Nadiine said in her second sentence is not a lie. Try again, seeker.

It's about equivalent to saying it's just fine to HATE people...


but murderering people we hate is wrong.

Same thing here, if just thinking it constitutes sin in the heart
(and it's the sin we first commit in our hearts & minds that then
lead us to carry out the actual event), then for sure committing
the acts is sinful & wrong.

I just love how people misinterpret to support preferences.

 

[Zecryphon]

You say "swapping sex partners does not glorify God". That is a statement of opinion.

It is a statement of fact. Did you read the 7th commandment, the one that specifically says "you shall not commit adultery"?

Anything can glorify God if it is not sin and we give thanks for it

Anything can not glorify God. God has given us many examples of things that do not glorify him. Whether or not we give thanks for something is not what determines whether or not something glorifies God. God determines that, not you.

God created sex to be enjoyed...not controled by man-made religion.

God did give us sex to be enjoyed, and He also gave us the parameters in which that sex is to be enjoyed. It is to be enjoyed within a marriage, between one husband and one wife.

I'm not saying believers use Romans 14 to justify that behavior...I'm just saying you can't judge it.

I most certainly can judge it. Go read 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. I am given the authority by God to judge other believers.

The key to this entire argument...besides Romans 14, Galations 5:1, and and understanding of the "Royal Law" is to undertake a study of OT sexual ethics.

The seventh commandment does not change or become invalidated because of OT sexual ethics, which you have yet to identify.

God legislated against specific sex acts in the OT. Adultery was defined in the OT by what it included and did not include. Study these things...then let us come back and reason together.

It's really perposterous that you assume that I have not studied, simply because I take a position on this matter that is not your own. Adultery was defined in the OT and then Jesus in the NT raised the bar. But maybe Jesus' own words don't carry a lot of weight with you since you are not a Christian. And before someone hits that report button on me for telling someone else they are not a Christian, check his icon, he admits it himself.

 

[chingchang]

I just love how people misinterpret to support preferences.

So I suppose if it were not adultery (according to your definition), you would engage in swinging? It is your preference not to...since you would most likely not do it regardless of your relationship with God and your understanding of what 'God's Word' is. So...you are guilty of interpreting the Bible in support of your preference!

It works both ways...

CC

 

[Nadiine]

What's too bad is that people claim to know God then preach
adultery isn't sin. oh well.
CF doesn't allow us to say much where false teaching is concerned but
I'd say alot more if rules allowed.

& I gave scriptures that show you the truth - people will do what they
want with it. There's no TESTING about this when it's spelled out
that even lust of another constitutes adultery...
how much more is having SEX with them.

Jesus taught the full extent of OT law that His people didn't know
due to ignorance. He told that he was allowing them to SIN in their
rebellion as they divorced wrongly & took on other wives afterward.

Just like allowing concubines by God went on - BUT ISN'T ALLOWED
TODAY in the NT.

So you see, it's YOUR error and false teaching that is the problem here.
Not scripture and not us.

Again it's always hilarious to me how people reject the OT when you
show it condemns homosexuality - all of a sudden "nobody is under law" & it's an obsolete testament.
But when people want to use it to support sexual sins people lived in, boy they use the OT like it's their best buddy!!

By the way, perhaps you're unaware of this verse regarding the change
to the NT from the OT:

Acts 17:30
"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance,
God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
Acts 17:29-31 (in Context) Acts 17 (Whole Chapter)

Ephesians 4:18
being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;
17So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind,

18being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;
19and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.
20But you did not learn Christ in this way,
21if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus,
22that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,
23and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.


The times of OT ignorance when the LIGHT hadn't come yet
(ie. Christ's illumination & salvation) are over with.
John 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds were evil.

No, we cannot live in polygamy & have "concubines" like they
did in their ignorance when God didn't punish & condemn it
openly.

They still had a sacrificial system in place & a special sacrifice
they continually made for "sins of ignorance" (all sin they

committed unknowingly).

1. Ezekiel 45:20
   And so you shall do on the seventh day of the month for everyone who has sinned unintentionally or in ignorance. Thus you shall make atonement for the temple.
   
   Ezekiel 45:19-21 (in Context) Ezekiel 45 (Whole Chapter)
   1. Hebrews 9:7
      But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance;
      

So they DID "repent" of the sins of polygamy and adultery and
fornication thru that specific sacrifice - God had allowed it in the
OT, HE DOES NOT IN THE NT.

It's called ADULTERY even to look at another in lust. Jesus defined
it in the New grace covenant - things changed.
Worse, having sex with another outside your marriage covenant.

Jesus said it's grounds for divorce when one commits adultery -

here's Jesus' definition of adultery since you seemed to have
missed it earlier:

Matthew 5:28
but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her
has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I guess I need to keep repeating everything over & over since
people like to make up their own definitions around here.

& here's yet another one that spells out adultery in our NT.
Romans 7

Believers United to Christ

1Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

Is this spelled out enough for you now?

I HAVE changed my mind about many things as the years have gone by...being open to God's Spirit.




It is necessary to study the OT in depth to construct a Godly sexual ethic. When you do that, you'll notice many things. One thing...for example...is that the ONLY way a man could commit adultery in the OT was by taking another man's wife (property). King David's sexual escapades is our prime example...but there are MANY. So...you contend that I am wrong...but you understanding of Godly sexual ethics are biased to what you've been taught and how society has programmed you. Let God program you via his Holy Spirit and you'll see things differently.

Hugs,
CC

It's necessary to PAY ATTN. TO THE NT. when the full definition
of adultery is given BY JESUS CHRIST.

Do you want to claim that Jesus has no clue what He's talking about?
He clearly states that JUST LOOKING at another women is the adultery.

He's teaching them their error & ignorance from the OT.
That sin starts in the heart & mind - just looking in lust is
having her sexually and wanting her.
Therefore, it's adultery to one who's already married.
WORSE would be carrying out the act to bring the sin to its
ultimate fruition.

Again, the NT elaborates and enlightens us as to the Old.
Not vice versa.
I suggest you get some proper teachers to show you how to
study and understand the Bible.

The above posts I made refute some of the earlier statements
made on this thread.

 

[Zecryphon]

It's about equivalent to saying it's just fine to HATE people...


but murderering people we hate is wrong.

Same thing here, if just thinking it constitutes sin in the heart
(and it's the sin we first commit in our hearts & minds that then
lead us to carry out the actual event), then for sure committing
the acts is sinful & wrong.

I just love how people misinterpret to support preferences.

I'm not really surprised. We have a Christian seeker, the tag itself is a violation of scripture as no one seeks after God on their own, promoting this idea that wife swapping is okay and can glorify God. When this person is actually saved and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, I believe their belief on this matter will change.

One thing that saddens me though is that it's okay to commit adultery and have sex with people who are not your spouse, but it's not okay to judge other Christians who openly profess and engage in this behavior, even though we are told in scripture to judge those in the church. Apparently judging is the real sin here, not adultery.

 

[chingchang]

It is a statement of fact. Did you read the 7th commandment, the one that specifically says "you shall not commit adultery"?

Anything can not glorify God. God has given us many examples of things that do not glorify him. Whether or not we give thanks for something is not what determines whether or not something glorifies God. God determines that, not you.

The definition of adultery is the matter here. I couldn't agree more that adultery is a sin.

I most certainly can judge it. Go read 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. I am given the authority by God to judge other believers.

This is a disputable matter whether you like it or not and that is why your are not to judge (Romans 14).

The seventh commandment does not change or become invalidated because of OT sexual ethics, which you have yet to identify.

You have yet to read all my posts...but I am not one man on an island and certainly no scholar. If you really want to know...then seek.

It's really perposterous that you assume that I have not studied, simply because I take a position on this matter that is not your own. Adultery was defined in the OT and then Jesus in the NT raised the bar. But maybe Jesus' own words don't carry a lot of weight with you since you are not a Christian. And before someone hits that report button on me for telling someone else they are not a Christian, check his icon, he admits it himself.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. If that meets your definition of 'Christian'...then that is what I am. If I have to view everything in the Bible (which you probably refer to as 'God's Word') like you do in order to be classified as a 'Christian'...then I probably am not. I selected 'Christian-Seeker' for my faith icon because that is what I am...a Christian who is seeking. If you have stopped seeking you will stop growing.

Hugs,
CC

 

[Zecryphon]

So I suppose if it were not adultery (according to your definition), you would engage in swinging? It is your preference not to...since you would most likely not do it regardless of your relationship with God and your understanding of what 'God's Word' is. So...you are guilty of interpreting the Bible in support of your preference!

It works both ways...

CC

Your attempt at condemnation here fails because Nadiine is not defining adultery according to what she thinks it is, but according to God has said it is. Once again you fail seeker.

 

[Hentenza]

You say "swapping sex partners does not glorify God". That is a statement of opinion. Anything can glorify God if it is not sin and we give thanks for it. God created sex to be enjoyed...not controled by man-made religion. I'm not saying believers use Romans 14 to justify that behavior...I'm just saying you can't judge it. The key to this entire argument...besides Romans 14, Galations 5:1, and and understanding of the "Royal Law" is to undertake a study of OT sexual ethics. God legislated against specific sex acts in the OT. Adultery was defined in the OT by what it included and did not include. Study these things...then let us come back and reason together.

Hugs,
CC

God created sex to be enjoyed within marriage, hence, a man and a woman become one flesh. Let no man separate what God has united. The support of swapping partners is nothing more than sinful persons separating what God has united. It is adultery and worse, it is a mockery of God's clear definition and purity of marriage.

 

[wkonwtrtom]

John T,

If you had read my posts and those of CC, you would know how I can say the things I have said.

I spent more than 20 years just accepting what the church, pastors, and more senior believers said was true and what the Bible meant. Then I opened my eyes and started looking into things myself. Looking into the true meaning and context of words and scripture. Looking into the history of the church and when and by whom certain doctrines were developed and how they were promulgated. Looking into why those doctrines were spread throughout the church, etc. Using more than the easily attainable references, commentaries, and Bible school materials.

One of the things I found was that sexuality was quite a bit more free in the early church, and throughout the OT, than it is in today's church. I found that pagan converts and Gnostic influences changed that and began to make sex a thing of evil rather than a God given thing of beauty and enjoyment. And that once Augustine declared sex to actually be sinful under almost every instance, the church began using that to condemn and hold the masses in bondage, generally for control and for money, basically in the same way that the Catholic Church held salvation hostage for indulgences prior to Luther.

A couple of sources, if you are interested, are Dirt, Sex, & Greed by L. William Countryman and Divine Sex by Philo Thelos. There are many others, though many are from the liberal end of the Christian spectrum and as such are often completely disregarded just for that reason. But even a broken clock can be right twice a day and when other more conservative sources concur or at least come to the same conclusions on the same facts, even the most liberal teachers can be right.

I believe that I have made my case and supplied some reference material for those that are actually interested in searching for the truth about sexual freedom under Christ. The reference material provides the evidence needed to point out errors on this subject.

As far as surrendering my pulpit, since God put me here, I would not bow to any man's call for that. I would preach to the rocks if that was all that was left. At least until God Himself moves me somewhere else. And I know that goes for the hundreds of pastors in evangelical and conservative churches in the US that believe the same thing on this subject.

Thanks for your input though. I do challenge you to check out the reference material cited. It may just spur you to look into it further.

Grace and peace