Swingers - Swapping Partners

[dayhiker]

I agree that God made sex for a purpose. While the importance of reproduction is ultimate for the continuation of the race by NT times its clear the race will continue and the early church even saw life time virginity as the ultimate dedication to God.

Many, even most are content with one sexual partner and quite a few remain virgins for life for a number of reasons. Yet there are a significant number of people, both men and women who like having more than one sexual partner. In the OT this was possible for men thru poligamy and concubinage. The OT is fine with these and God was too as God defended Moses when he took a 2nd wife and gave multiple wives to David and said He would give David more wives if David wanted them. Plus the law of Moses gives instruction how a man must treat these wives.

In NT times the church is in the Gentile world where Rome said it was illegal for men to have more than one wife. The Gentile church, understandablely takes this on. The Gentile church also is influenced by the Greek dualism of the spirit world being good and the physical world being evil. So asceticism became the most admired Christian lifestyle. Jerome taught that people should aviod meat and fast to the point that that they had so little bodily energy they had little to no sexual desire. I could go on with the churches negative views thru history toward sex.

There are Christian people who are among those who desire sexual experiences beyond one person. This is seen in the sin of many Christians who commit adultery thru all church history. But there is a way to experience this in a good way, not a sinful way. This is the strong faith position that Paul refered to. The strong position is based in love and faith with thanksgiving. Each person much be in agreement, no lying, no going behind others back, males and females have an equal right to say yes or no. Paul understands that all these things are clean and good if a person can do them in love and faith.

I know the weak as Paul defined them can't imagine this is erally good and clean. But the most Paul could say against their position was that it might not be benifical. Yet the strong would say it is benificial to them. So Pul added that the strong should not allow the weak to speak negatively of their view. A pretty strong statement that I don't know to do other than to say that the statement by Paul that its might not be benificial isn't a blanket statement that its not beneficial.

Good day to all,
dayhiker

 

[Floatingaxe]

That is simply ridiculous, Dayhiker! It's HOOEY!
Paul tells us that if you burn with desire, then marry! Marriage is monogamy for the Christian and sexual encounters are within that union--period.

So what if some people want more than one partner? That is only evidence of our sinful nature! We do not accommodate the lust of the flesh. It is spiritual death to do so!

1 John 2:16
For the world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world.

 

[Nadiine]

greater freedom? i think you're taking that a little far. 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 ""Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

The key that gets missed in that passage is that Paul isn't talking about
how ALL SIN is permissible for Christians.
He's speaking of LIBERTIES.

If that's the case, then murder is permissible, pedophilia, rape, kidnapping,
theft, extortion/blackmail, drug abuse, drunkeness, etc.

His point is that personal liberties NOT Listed as "sin", may be harmful
even tho they aren't called SIN.
ie. social drinking.
Sure, an X alcoholic might convert to Christianity - & he's free to have
some alcohol in moderation....
is it beneficial or good for him since he CAN have it?
Not a chance; it could easily send him into relapse.

So while he can, it may also master him & he may be put back into
bondage to it thru exercising his liberty as a Christian.
Same with clothing styles, music we listen to...
sure you can listen to hard rock - but is that good for your spirit?
I say no even tho I do love it.

Anyone using those passages to support sin clearly isn't studying
properly ... or using common sense.

 

[LightHorseman]

sinful consent is NEVER justification for sin -
it's just 2 corrupt people agreeing on sinful acts.

For that matter, if 2 people decide to commit incest or bestiality, use or sell drugs, hand minors alcohol becuz they want it for a party,
have sex w/ your teacher, drive drunk, or 2 parents beat their kids, it all becomes fine becuz "adults" consented to it.

Sorry, God gives the moral laws, not man.

Yes, God DID give the moral law... which is the one about mutual adult consent (loving the neighbour as your self) The problem with all your examples is that they involve MORE than just the two people consenting. In ANY activity, if ALL parties consent, it is not sinful. Ever.

 

[No Swansong]

Yes, God DID give the moral law... which is the one about mutual adult consent (loving the neighbour as your self) The problem with all your examples is that they involve MORE than just the two people consenting. In ANY activity, if ALL parties consent, it is not sinful. Ever.

Who would the 3rd party be if person A wanted to die and person B consented to help by shooting them in the head?

 

[LightHorseman]

Who would the 3rd party be if person A wanted to die and person B consented to help by shooting them in the head?

The family, friends, employers and community of the person wanting to die are all third parties in such a case. And (for the moment, in most Western jurisdictions at least) it is the general consensus of such third parties that suicide and assisted suicide are usually not acceptible. Because suicide effects more than just the person dying, consent has to come from other people. Killing yourself without, say, your mother's consent is not obtaining the consent of all concerned, as your mother is very much involved, even though she may be on the other side of the world when you pull the trigger.

 

[No Swansong]

The family, friends, employers and community of the person wanting to die are all third parties in such a case. And (for the moment, in most Western jurisdictions at least) it is the general consensus of such third parties that suicide and assisted suicide are usually not acceptible. Because suicide effects more than just the person dying, consent has to come from other people. Killing yourself without, say, your mother's consent is not obtaining the consent of all concerned, as your mother is very much involved, even though she may be on the other side of the world when you pull the trigger.

The same argument could apply to swinging.

 

[LightHorseman]

The same argument could apply to swinging.

Indeed it could.

However, I would point out that the harm caused to third parties through suicide are concrete and quantifiable, any harm caused to third parties by swinging are far more intangible, and can also be addressed with adequate preparation and care.

 

[NaLuvena]

Yes, God DID give the moral law... which is the one about mutual adult consent (loving the neighbour as your self) The problem with all your examples is that they involve MORE than just the two people consenting. In ANY activity, if ALL parties consent, it is not sinful. Ever.

I agree. If ALL parties consent, it is not sin. All parties would also include God.

 

[LightHorseman]

I agree. If ALL parties consent, it is not sin. All parties would also include God.

God consented when he gave us free will, a conscience, and the commandment to love our neighbours as ourselves. From that point on, we get to make our own decisions on what is morally correct.

 

[Armistead]

I think this "no harm" philosophy is on the right track... so, um... swinging with people who have been screened for STDs is...? What? OK or not? Assuming all round consent, of course.

Not really possible. People that swing usually do so with many people. I'm sure many are concerned with STD's and get tested. With herpes, many people spread it never knowing they have it and the fact is many with herpes chance it. Think of the number of people, times the number of people they have had sex with, times years...you're sleeping with thousands of people each encounter.

Pregancy, if you believe abortion is sin, could only be covered if the people are fixed.

However, what Swingers are missing is the emotional factor. They disconnect sex from the soul.

I just don't see how you can partake of this behavior without ...the can of worms...and the fact is many of them end up with a big can of worms.

There are better ways to enjoy sex without all the fear and possible hurt.

 

[LightHorseman]

Not really possible. People that swing usually do so with many people. I'm sure many are concerned with STD's and get tested. With herpes, many people spread it never knowing they have it and the fact is many with herpes chance it. Think of the number of people, times the number of people they have had sex with, times years...you're sleeping with thousands of people each encounter.

Pregancy, if you believe abortion is sin, could only be covered if the people are fixed.

However, what Swingers are missing is the emotional factor. They disconnect sex from the soul.

I just don't see how you can partake of this behavior without ...the can of worms...and the fact is many of them end up with a big can of worms.

There are better ways to enjoy sex without all the fear and possible hurt.

Hey, I agree that there are better ways to enjoy a healthy sex life... swinging doesn't particularly apeal to me, but who am I to judge, right?

I also think its a bit of a broad brush you're using there saying that "most swingers sleep with many people" and are overplaying the risk of herpes or pregnancy. I don't think swingers would be at any greater risk of herpes or pregnancy than anyone else who has slept with multiple partners through their lives. And, like anyone who has had more than one partner, basic precautions can and should be taken to avoid pregnancy and STDs that are very effective.

 

[Zecryphon]

LH, when did God give us this free will? Was it before He gave Moses the 10 Commandments or after? Because I don't believe that our free will trumps or invalidates the sixth commandment which says: You shall not commit adultery. I also don't believe that free will trumps the tenth commandment which says: You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Does free will trump Jesus' words in Matthew 5 where Jesus said that any man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

[LightHorseman]

LH, when did God give us this free will? Was it before He gave Moses the 10 Commandments or after? Because I don't believe that our free will trumps or invalidates the sixth commandment which says: You shall not commit adultery. I also don't believe that free will trumps the tenth commandment which says: You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Does free will trump Jesus' words in Matthew 5 where Jesus said that any man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Jesus commandment to us to treat our neighbour's as our self (which I interpret as the mutual adult informed consent makes something moral) trumps the commandments.

the commandments are intended as a GUIDE, and are not intended as the be all and end all arbiter of all human interaction.

 

[god's_pawn]

Yes, God DID give the moral law... which is the one about mutual adult consent (loving the neighbour as your self) The problem with all your examples is that they involve MORE than just the two people consenting. In ANY activity, if ALL parties consent, it is not sinful. Ever.

so i can go murder someone as long as we both consent to the activity? that's news to me. our consent (given or refused) is NOT, i repeat, NOT the definition of sin, ever. sin is when we turn away from God and what is best for us, consent has nothing to do with it.

 

[LightHorseman]

so i can go murder someone as long as we both consent to the activity? that's news to me. our consent (given or refused) is NOT, i repeat, NOT the definition of sin, ever. sin is when we turn away from God and what is best for us, consent has nothing to do with it.

No, becaus4e more than you and the murder victim are involved in that case. But if you got consent from EVERYONE in the equation, then sure, murder away.

 

[god's_pawn]

Jesus commandment to us to treat our neighbour's as our self (which I interpret as the mutual adult informed consent makes something moral) trumps the commandments.

the commandments are intended as a GUIDE, and are not intended as the be all and end all arbiter of all human interaction.

well, i believe that you are wrong. when is it ever good do disobey one of the ten commandments? never i dare say. if this is the case then they are more than just guidelines. Jesus Himself said that we should follow them in his conversation with the rich young man. "Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'" "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"..." the story goes on but it isn't important in this conversation. note that nowhere does Jesus mention anything about guidlines. He simply states "If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

 

[god's_pawn]

No, becaus4e more than you and the murder victim are involved in that case. But if you got consent from EVERYONE in the equation, then sure, murder away.

despite "do not murder." being a commandment? i don't think so. please also note the period after the "do not murder" part. this means that there's no room for argument. as stated in another post: consent has absolutely nothing to do whether or not something is a sin.

 

[LightHorseman]

despite "do not murder." being a commandment? i don't think so. please also note the period after the "do not murder" part. this means that there's no room for argument. as stated in another post: consent has absolutely nothing to do whether or not something is a sin.

Answer me this... if everyone involved consents, whats wrong with it?

 

[MarkSB]

Paul understands that all these things are clean and good if a person can do them in love and faith.

I know the weak as Paul defined them can't imagine this is erally good and clean. But the most Paul could say against their position was that it might not be benifical. Yet the strong would say it is benificial to them. So Pul added that the strong should not allow the weak to speak negatively of their view. A pretty strong statement that I don't know to do other than to say that the statement by Paul that its might not be benificial isn't a blanket statement that its not beneficial.

Good day to all,
dayhiker

Those verses in Romans are being broadly applied in this thread. Paul was speaking of meat sacraficed to idols; he wasn't talking about wife swapping for Pete's sake.

Sexual sin is one of the sins that affects us the most spiritually. This was emphasized by Paul in Corinthians when he said that he who participates in sexual immorality sins against his own body. And it was in this same letter to the Corinthians that Paul confronted them about the man who had slept with his father's wife. Paul was shocked that the Corinthians were proud of this, boasting of their freedom in Christ; and his reaction was to tell them that the sinful member be confronted and cast out of the church.

Paul would be equally shocked by wife swapping within the church. Could you imagine, if the Corinthians had come to him and said, "No wait, he had his father's permission." What do you think he would have said? "Oh, well.. then it's O.K." ? Gimme a break. Paul suffered many trials and persecutions for God and he would not have stood for such behavior.

Quit twisting the scriptures to support your own warped thinking.