Is Using a Fleshlight a Sin? Can Christains Use Sex Toys?

[Jim Bob]

@ ghendricks

What exactly do you believe is sin and what's allowed?
I'm a little confused about what exactly you believe.
Is watching inappropriate content as sin in your opinion if the actors in there are not married? If lusting was only forbidden when you lust after married people then inappropriate content with unmarried people would be perfectly fine. Do you believe this?
And what about sex without being married? Is this a sin?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Nonsense...was she married to her father before the act of sex? Your conclusion does not follow logically.

If a female was a woman's property, it was because of one of three reasons. She was a slave, a wife, or a daughter (a widow was her own, but was cared for by the community). You insist on saying I am claiming that to be property means to be a wife, I'm merely pointing out that to be a wife means to be property.

And are you seriously suggesting that women as property is morally superior than today?

Are you suggesting the Bible is wrong? Are you suggesting God was wrong with the culture He created.

That conclusion pretty much defies credibility.

Not as much as defying the Bible does when arguing how it should be.

You can live under the law if you like and feel good about yourself. I'll take grace anyday.

Does grace make adultery acceptable? Does grace make idolatry acceptable? Grace is that we don't have to pay the penalty for breaking the law, but the way we should live is how it was set up by God except where God Himself, through the Bible, changed it. As such, celibacy is more valued than marriage, but marriage is still good, but if we are to do such, we are to marry under the commandments given by Paul, which was traditional Jewish marriage back then. The Bible is clear in the New Testament that the wife belongs to the husband. It ADDS that the husband also belongs to the wife.

BTW - Under that "morally superior" system of law, you were allowed to beat a slave, and a wife, and if it took them a few days to die from it you were ok.

Actually that is backward. You were allowed to beat a slave, but if it took more than a day for him to recover from it, you were to be punished. I was spanked hard enough when I was a child that it took a day for me to recover. It was saying the max limit of a beating, which was limited to AT MOST a good spanking. If you caused any permanent injury to a slave, he was to be set free, and if he died, you were punished.

Read up on the Old Law before you attack it so much, because you are attacking the one who put that law in place when you attack it.

 

[ghendricks63]

If a female was a woman's property, it was because of one of three reasons. She was a slave, a wife, or a daughter (a widow was her own, but was cared for by the community). You insist on saying I am claiming that to be property means to be a wife, I'm merely pointing out that to be a wife means to be property.

Are you suggesting the Bible is wrong? Are you suggesting God was wrong with the culture He created.

Not as much as defying the Bible does when arguing how it should be.

Does grace make adultery acceptable? Does grace make idolatry acceptable? Grace is that we don't have to pay the penalty for breaking the law, but the way we should live is how it was set up by God except where God Himself, through the Bible, changed it. As such, celibacy is more valued than marriage, but marriage is still good, but if we are to do such, we are to marry under the commandments given by Paul, which was traditional Jewish marriage back then. The Bible is clear in the New Testament that the wife belongs to the husband. It ADDS that the husband also belongs to the wife.


Actually that is backward. You were allowed to beat a slave, but if it took more than a day for him to recover from it, you were to be punished. I was spanked hard enough when I was a child that it took a day for me to recover. It was saying the max limit of a beating, which was limited to AT MOST a good spanking. If you caused any permanent injury to a slave, he was to be set free, and if he died, you were punished.

Read up on the Old Law before you attack it so much, because you are attacking the one who put that law in place when you attack it.

I am suggesting that the old covenant is past. I am suggesting that life under grace is infinitely better than life under the law. Not sure why this should surprise you as this is pretty standard fare. Your defense of the brutality of the old code is very telling.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:13

Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: Romans 5:20

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Romans 8:3

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Romans 10:4


Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13:10

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Galatians 3:11

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. Galatians 3:21

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Galatians 5:4

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Galatians 5:18

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Galatians 5:14

Do I really need to go on? This is but a small sampling.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I am suggesting that the old covenant is past. I am suggesting that life under grace is infinitely better than life under the law. Not sure why this should surprise you as this is pretty standard fare.

I'm merely pointing out that even though we live under a new covenant, that doesn't mean we are allowed to do what ever we want. There is still right and wrong, the same that was encapsulated by the old covenant.

Your defense of the brutality of the old code is very telling.

I'll take it you haven't read Revelations. You think the Old Testament is brutal? Wait till the real bloodshed begins. Hope you like red.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3

That doesn't say we can do what ever we want and be justified though. The most liberal you can go with the writings of Paul is that as long as we have faith that what we do is good, then we do not sin. But such a view would justify a number of horrendous acts and other things considered sin that, per normal doctrine, are considered wrong. For example, a man that has faith God wants him to commit adultery, is he in the wrong if he does so? Most would say yes.

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:13

This is actually speaking of the idea that Abraham was the only one to show enough faith to be saved by faith alone, of those who died before Christ. But once again, you fail to point out that right and wrong are not found in the law.

Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: Romans 5:20

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Romans 8:3

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Romans 10:4


Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13:10

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Galatians 3:11

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. Galatians 3:21

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Galatians 5:4

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Galatians 5:18

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Galatians 5:14

Do I really need to go on? This is but a small sampling.

The law is that we must sacrifice to atone for our wrong doings. We no longer have to sacrifice for faith in the sacrifice made through Christ is enough for atonement. This does not mean that right and wrong cease to exist. Right and wrong, sin and righteousness still exist. So then, how do we determine what is right or wrong? We must still rely upon the Bible, which gives God's view of right and wrong. A combined look through both testaments will give this. We cannot ignore what the Old Testament says.

Also if you note, in the verses referring to premarital sex in the Old Testament, there was no need to make atonement. No sacrifice for wrong doing was required or requested of them. They were just to marry. Those rules were not part of the law which we are no longer under because that consist only of the law requiring sacrifice for atonement. For premarital sex, there was nothing to atone for, but you were married (with the exception of a pre-puberty girl, where her father was allowed to ban the marriage if he fully and totally could not stand it, but even then the man was to act as if he took the girl as a wife by paying the bride price, so one might say it was more like a marriage followed by divorce, though engagement is a more correct term but their engagement was far closer to our marriage than our engagement).

 

[ghendricks63]

I'm merely pointing out that even though we live under a new covenant, that doesn't mean we are allowed to do what ever we want. There is still right and wrong, the same that was encapsulated by the old covenant.

I'll take it you haven't read Revelations. You think the Old Testament is brutal? Wait till the real bloodshed begins. Hope you like red.

That doesn't say we can do what ever we want and be justified though. The most liberal you can go with the writings of Paul is that as long as we have faith that what we do is good, then we do not sin. But such a view would justify a number of horrendous acts and other things considered sin that, per normal doctrine, are considered wrong. For example, a man that has faith God wants him to commit adultery, is he in the wrong if he does so? Most would say yes.

This is actually speaking of the idea that Abraham was the only one to show enough faith to be saved by faith alone, of those who died before Christ. But once again, you fail to point out that right and wrong are not found in the law.


The law is that we must sacrifice to atone for our wrong doings. We no longer have to sacrifice for faith in the sacrifice made through Christ is enough for atonement. This does not mean that right and wrong cease to exist. Right and wrong, sin and righteousness still exist. So then, how do we determine what is right or wrong? We must still rely upon the Bible, which gives God's view of right and wrong. A combined look through both testaments will give this. We cannot ignore what the Old Testament says.

Also if you note, in the verses referring to premarital sex in the Old Testament, there was no need to make atonement. No sacrifice for wrong doing was required or requested of them. They were just to marry. Those rules were not part of the law which we are no longer under because that consist only of the law requiring sacrifice for atonement. For premarital sex, there was nothing to atone for, but you were married (with the exception of a pre-puberty girl, where her father was allowed to ban the marriage if he fully and totally could not stand it, but even then the man was to act as if he took the girl as a wife by paying the bride price, so one might say it was more like a marriage followed by divorce, though engagement is a more correct term but their engagement was far closer to our marriage than our engagement).

This is really not that hard...

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Galatians 5:18

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14


And perhaps most illustrative of what you represent to me...


It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.


You represent the slavery of the law. I stand firm in the FREEDOM my Christ has provided.

Your sense of right and wrong seems to be based on the law. Mine is based on the cross.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ghendricks63,
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Galatians 5:18

This is true but the issue is not about law at all. This concerns God's creation purposes (Genesis 2) before the Law was given. As has been pointed out under the covenant of grace through Jesus Christ the purpose of God in creating male and female was man and woman to be united faithfully (Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6 and Hebrews 13) and fornication and adultery sin and outside that.
1 Corinthians 7 shows that because of so much sexual immorality each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
Its simple. That applies on this forum as well, so many discussions about all kinds of possible sexual activity outside fathful man woman marriage is not grace, but legalistic thinking.

 

[lawtonfogle]

This is really not that hard...

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Galatians 5:18

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 6:14


And perhaps most illustrative of what you represent to me...


It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.


You represent the slavery of the law. I stand firm in the FREEDOM my Christ has provided.

Your sense of right and wrong seems to be based on the law. Mine is based on the cross.

Then tell me, based upon the cross, what exactly is wrong. Is murder wrong? Adultery? How exactly do you tell wrong, based upon the cross.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ghendricks63

Then tell me, based upon the cross, what exactly is wrong. Is murder wrong? Adultery? How exactly do you tell wrong, based upon the cross.

I would alos be interested in your response to this question

 

[ghendricks63]

Then tell me, based upon the cross, what exactly is wrong. Is murder wrong? Adultery? How exactly do you tell wrong, based upon the cross.

Simple...a violation of the Royal Law of Love. This is the only thing that actually determines if a thing is sinful or not.

Murder understood correctly as unjustly taking the life of another cannot be done without violating this law. However I support taking another's lifer under extreme circumstances such as defense of my family or my country.

Adultery, understood correctly as a violation of a covenant, cannot be done without violating this law of love. Biblical adultery specifically means to violate any covenant...not just marriage. Israel was often accused of adultery in their relationshp with God when they broke the terms of their covenant with Him. Sex outside of a covenant of sexual exclusivity (the terms of the covenant being what is paramount here) is of course one type of adultery. It is unfortunate that this seem to be the only way the church defines adultery because so is not honoring and/or abusing a spouse, not loving, or any other violation of a covenant two people enter into when they marry. These all violate the law of love.

How do you tell based upon the cross? You trust the words of Jesus when He said He had kept His Father's commands and we are to keep His command to us...that we love each other as He has loved us. John 13. In other words He fulfilled the impossible...we now have a way to meet the requirements of the law through love where we could not meet it by serving the law.

To the pure, all things are pure. Only then do I understand that sin has NOTHING to do with specific actions and EVERYTHING to do with the attitude of the heart.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ghendricks63,

Simple...a violation of the Royal Law of Love. This is the only thing that actually determines if a thing is sinful or not.

This sounds like the humanism idea of morality, whether people think it hurts somoene. A common misconception. In principle sounds fine as God is love so one could equally say the royal law of God.
Remember 1 John 4:10 "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."
"God is love", not "Love is god"

The James 2 passage you almost certainly cite from concerns favouritism, not sin. I dont think you have the right context.

How do you tell based upon the cross? You trust the words of Jesus when He said He had kept His Father's commands and we are to keep His command to us...that we love each other as He has loved us. John 13.

Yes but He also commanded not to sin and described various sins.

Only then do I understand that sin has NOTHING to do with specific actions and EVERYTHING to do with the attitude of the heart.

It also has to do with the attitude of the heart to sepcif actions which are sin.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Simple...a violation of the Royal Law of Love. This is the only thing that actually determines if a thing is sinful or not.

And where do you derive this idea from?

Murder understood correctly as unjustly taking the life of another cannot be done without violating this law. However I support taking another's lifer under extreme circumstances such as defense of my family or my country.

What constitutes defense? Killing 100 people because one might be a terrorist, even if we know that at least 99 are innocent.

Adultery, understood correctly as a violation of a covenant, cannot be done without violating this law of love.

What about if two people marry knowing they both want to be swingers?

Biblical adultery specifically means to violate any covenant...not just marriage. Israel was often accused of adultery in their relationshp with God when they broke the terms of their covenant with Him. Sex outside of a covenant of sexual exclusivity (the terms of the covenant being what is paramount here) is of course one type of adultery. It is unfortunate that this seem to be the only way the church defines adultery because so is not honoring and/or abusing a spouse, not loving, or any other violation of a covenant two people enter into when they marry. These all violate the law of love.

How do you tell based upon the cross? You trust the words of Jesus when He said He had kept His Father's commands and we are to keep His command to us...that we love each other as He has loved us.

But how do we express love? Different people have vastly different ideas.

John 13. In other words He fulfilled the impossible...we now have a way to meet the requirements of the law through love where we could not meet it by serving the law.

To the pure, all things are pure. Only then do I understand that sin has NOTHING to do with specific actions and EVERYTHING to do with the attitude of the heart.

So anything, if done with a pure heart, is acceptable? Including things like sexual/romantic relationships between children and adults or animals and adults? What about a someone who thinks they are showing someone love when they kill them?

 

[ghendricks63]

And where do you derive this idea from?

What constitutes defense? Killing 100 people because one might be a terrorist, even if we know that at least 99 are innocent.

What about if two people marry knowing they both want to be swingers?

But how do we express love? Different people have vastly different ideas.


So anything, if done with a pure heart, is acceptable? Including things like sexual/romantic relationships between children and adults or animals and adults? What about a someone who thinks they are showing someone love when they kill them?

No matter how many extreme scenarios you try to imagine to refute the law of love...it is still our command and our moral compass. Of course people have different ideas on how we express it. This is why Paul spent so much time teaching the principle that what is sin for one is not sin for another and the deciding factor often times truly is one's conscience.

The illustrations of pedophilia and inappropriate behavior with animals are utter nonsense. There are ALWAYS victims in such cases so that argument is a clear straw man. Anyone who pursues such logic loses all credibility.

"What if two people marry knowing they both want to be swingers"?

Great question. Many of the heroes of the faith WERE swingers by the way most Christians would define it. Interesting that God never said one word about His horrible disgust and contempt for their behaviors...LOL At what point would such a choice be sinful? The answer to that question is between them and God...not you and I...for only God knows the heart.

Study the life of David. What was the difference between his sin with Bathsheba and all of his other wives and lovers who God never spoke against? (Actually God said through the prophet Nathan that He had even given some of them into David's arms and was willing to give him even more) The answer is as obvious as the nose on my face. With Bathsheba David violated the law of love when he TOOK that which he was not entitled to. He literally stole her from another man and then had the man killed to cover it up. The sin was not the sex or it would have applied to all of the other women. If the sin was the sex then there is no way God Himself would have given other lovers to David. The sin was the clear violation of the law of love.

 

[ghendricks63]

Oh - And as for where I "derive this idea from".

It is implied all throughout the NT and specifically stated in various places but perhaps none more clearly than in James chapter 2.

8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

 

[lawtonfogle]

No matter how many extreme scenarios you try to imagine to refute the law of love...it is still our command and our moral compass. Of course people have different ideas on how we express it. This is why Paul spent so much time teaching the principle that what is sin for one is not sin for another and the deciding factor often times truly is one's conscience.

The illustrations of pedophilia and inappropriate behavior with animals are utter nonsense. There are ALWAYS victims in such cases so that argument is a clear straw man.

PROVE IT.

You can't, because I can show case after case where they aren't. Yeah, so maybe there are only 2 dozen out of millions of cases where there aren't victims, but you can't just pretend those 2 dozen do not exist.

Anyone who pursues such logic loses all credibility.

Your only argument is that any argument I use is inherently incredible. Come up with something better.

The truth is you are unable to use your own argument except where you want it applied. To use an argument in only some cases but not others, with no other reason except dislike of the use, is special pleading.

"What if two people marry knowing they both want to be swingers"?

Great question. Many of the heroes of the faith WERE swingers by the way most Christians would define it. Interesting that God never said one word about His horrible disgust and contempt for their behaviors...LOL At what point would such a choice be sinful? The answer to that question is between them and God...not you and I...for only God knows the heart.

Show where they were swingers?

Study the life of David. What was the difference between his sin with Bathsheba and all of his other wives and lovers who God never spoke against?

He married the rest. There is a difference between polygamy (approved in the Old Testament, if not exalted) and swinging.

(Actually God said through the prophet Nathan that He had even given some of them into David's arms and was willing to give him even more) The answer is as obvious as the nose on my face. With Bathsheba David violated the law of love when he TOOK that which he was not entitled to. He literally stole her from another man and then had the man killed to cover it up. The sin was not the sex or it would have applied to all of the other women. If the sin was the sex then there is no way God Himself would have given other lovers to David. The sin was the clear violation of the law of love.

In Bathsheba's case, it was adultery followed by murder to cover it up. In the case of his many wives, this is polygamy. NEITHER of these are swinging, so why don't you answer the question about swinging instead of trying to point out that polygamy was acceptable.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Oh - And as for where I "derive this idea from".

It is implied all throughout the NT and specifically stated in various places but perhaps none more clearly than in James chapter 2.

8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

Out of God's own mouth, what is the greatest commandment?

 

[brightmorningstar]

ghendricks63,
So sex outsdie faitfull man/woman marriage is contrary to the royal law of love as Jesus (who is the truth) described it. Yes?

 

[ghendricks63]

Out of God's own mouth, what is the greatest commandment?

The greatest commandment in the Law you mean? Of course I presume you are referring to the first (and 2nd) commandments. Here is the direct quote by God from Matthew 22.

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

As you can clearly see Jesus put the entire law and prophets into submission to love. Of course He further clarified and provided the ultimate example when He made the following statement in John 13.

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Like I said...the Royal Law of Love.

 

[ghendricks63]

PROVE IT.


Show where they were swingers?

He married the rest. There is a difference between polygamy (approved in the Old Testament, if not exalted) and swinging.

In Bathsheba's case, it was adultery followed by murder to cover it up. In the case of his many wives, this is polygamy. NEITHER of these are swinging, so why don't you answer the question about swinging instead of trying to point out that polygamy was acceptable.

Oh he most definitely did not marry the rest. He did have several wives...but no place is it recorded that he married all of the women that he received from Saul.

Jacob, the father of the 12 tribes of Israel was married to two of the women who birthed some of the sons, but 2 other women were simply hand maidens who he never married. He was a swinger by any interpretation. And this was the method God chose to birth His chosen people...and NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, stated that his arrangement was wrong or sinful. (Horrors...How could God forget something so important?)

How about Samson? Are you going to tell me that he was married to all of the women he had sex with? And yet God never spoke a word of displeasure nor removed His blessing from upon Him until Samson allowed his hair to be cut in direct violation of God's orders.

Even Solomon's sin was not the many wives and the extremely large harem he kept for his sexual pleasure. It was violating God's directive not to marry foreign women who would lead his heart away from the true God.

Any honest evaluation of scripture leads to the inescapable conclusion that God is not nearly as concerned with sex as He is with our heart. Sex is the church's obsession. It has never been God's.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Oh he most definitely did not marry the rest. He did have several wives...but no place is it recorded that he married all of the women that he received from Saul.

Unless you are talking about concubines (which was really a Solomon thing), he had wives, implying marriage.

If I say "This is my wife," I don't have to say I married her, that is implied.

Jacob, the father of the 12 tribes of Israel was married to two of the women who birthed some of the sons, but 2 other women were simply hand maidens who he never married. He was a swinger by any interpretation.

Where those other women married? No. They were his (or his wives) slaves, which was allowed, as he owned her much like a wife, just not with the social status. But at no point was he doing it with another mans wife, which is swinging.

And this was the method God chose to birth His chosen people...and NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, stated that his arrangement was wrong or sinful. (Horrors...How could God forget something so important?)

God also never once said there should be an age of consent or a minimum age to marry, yet you have indicated otherwise.

How about Samson? Are you going to tell me that he was married to all of the women he had sex with? And yet God never spoke a word of displeasure nor removed His blessing from upon Him until Samson allowed his hair to be cut in direct violation of God's orders.

I haven't much studied who Samson had sex with, I'll get back to you on this one later. But can you show where he was having sex with another mans wife and seen positively for it?

Even Solomon's sin was not the many wives and the extremely large harem he kept for his sexual pleasure. It was violating God's directive not to marry foreign women who would lead his heart away from the true God.

Once again, I have already pointed out that polygamy and having sex with your slaves was acceptable. Swinging is with another man's wife. Where is that allowed?

Any honest evaluation of scripture leads to the inescapable conclusion that God is not nearly as concerned with sex as He is with our heart. Sex is the church's obsession. It has never been God's.

This is because if our heart is in the right place, we won't violate the rules for sex He has set. But one clear rule is no adultery, which includes swinging, which you have been trying to defend.

Also, you never proved there is always a victim.

 

[lawtonfogle]

The greatest commandment in the Law you mean? Of course I presume you are referring to the first (and 2nd) commandments. Here is the direct quote by God from Matthew 22.

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

As you can clearly see Jesus put the entire law and prophets into submission to love. Of course He further clarified and provided the ultimate example when He made the following statement in John 13.

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Like I said...the Royal Law of Love.

We are to love God first and foremost, showed by obedience to His laws. Which includes no sex with another man's wife, and sex was only allowed with your wife, your slave, or an unmarried/non-promised person who you were then required to marry. Where is a man's wife (who isn't a widow) allowed to have sex with other men?