Christian Swingers

[Joykins]

It isn't on either of the links in the OP but I once read this article on Christian swinging that went through all the sexual laws in the Bible very painstakingly and figured out exactly how a couple could swing without actually breaking any of them. It was pretty funny. It involved the wife taking a female lover, iirc. It was quite the clever bit of rules-lawyering. Let me look...Oh, I found it, it was for threesomes (but I think its a joke site).

Yeah, I don't believe swinging is within the scope of Christian sexual morality.

 

[ebia]

I never stated it was the ONLY one.

No, but they aren't equivalent.

Deontology or virtue ethics don't require a victim for an act to be immoral.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

Doing something wrong? No. But, a lifestyle that is built around brazenly disregarding a central aspect of biblical morality is pretty solid evidence that one doesn't really want to be "part of the club".

EXactly. Lots of people want to be "part of the club", but most are still to busy living in their sinful lifestyles. And from what I know if you become a christian but don't give your ways of the past then you aren't a christian and when you enter heaven and cry out Gods name, He will ignore you saying He doens't know who you are and to go away. Hence you go elsewhere.

Now some people say as a christian you can sill all you want and still not lose your salvation. Others say you can lose it if you 100% turn away from God.

 

[madaz]

No, but they aren't equivalent.

Deontology or virtue ethics don't require a victim for an act to be immoral.

Of course because morality is subjective.

 

[madaz]

EXactly. Lots of people want to be "part of the club", but most are still to busy living in their sinful lifestyles. And from what I know if you become a christian but don't give your ways of the past then you aren't a christian and when you enter heaven and cry out Gods name, He will ignore you saying He doens't know who you are and to go away. Hence you go elsewhere.
Now some people say as a christian you can sill all you want and still not lose your salvation. Others say you can lose it if you 100% turn away from God.

So your supposedly all loving god will turn his back and pretend to forget these "sinful" people?

Can't a christian be "sinful" then repent before death and have salvation?

 

[madaz]

It isn't on either of the links in the OP but I once read this article on Christian swinging that went through all the sexual laws in the Bible very painstakingly and figured out exactly how a couple could swing without actually breaking any of them. It was pretty funny. It involved the wife taking a female lover, iirc. It was quite the clever bit of rules-lawyering. Let me look...Oh, I found it, it was for threesomes (but I think its a joke site).

Yeah, I don't believe swinging is within the scope of Christian sexual morality.

Are you sure that link you provided is really a joke site?

I found this there-

"To summarize, we feel a Christian threesome is morally acceptable if it meets these conditions: It must be composed of one man and two women, all of whom recognize and maintain proper sex roles for men and women in and out of the bedroom"

Excluding the female/male/male combination of threesome seems conspicuously christian to me.

 

[Johnnz]

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]It's probably not seen as moral if certain bible verses are used, but the bible is very ... flexible ... so one could use it to justify pretty much anything.

[/FONT]The reason I say this, is that in the Old Testament, 'biblical marriage' consisted of multiple people (wives/concubines ... I don't recall multiple husbands but it's been awhile since I cracked open one of my bibles). Such arrangements could've had (theoretically) a better chance of enduring because the pressure isn't on just one individual to make the other happy (at least, in the physical-relations front, which can be a point of friction in many relationships if the drives are not equal). In such arrangements, if one wife had a 'headache' and didn't feel like makin' whoopie on any given night, there would be someone else available amongst the group who might be more inclined to do so.

That's a very common misconception. In ancient times the privileged few, such a kings and some very wealthy men had multiple wives. But the general population had only one. One wife/husband was the overall view held by the Jewish people and later by Christians from the first century as for many of their surrounding cultures too.

Nowadays, marriage is generally between just two individuals, which might be one reason why marriages based on the monogamy-model go flat after awhile.

Not all do go flat. Many see the 'flat times' as a challenge to rediscover even better sex. Those who do so most often speak about reaching new levels of intimacy which sex then expresses.

Edit: All the above is to say that maybe swingers are on to something, and the way OT marriages were done is a clue.

Here I see that church history has not done well with sex too often. The Genesis story has been traditionally understood to be about clothing; nakedness is inherently shameful and wrong. I no longer accept that reading of those texts. There is a general interest in the human body and sex, and the female body has become highly eroticised. A more general acceptance of our sexuality to include far more appropriate social nudity could result in a significant reduction of our sexually charged presentation of the human body.

My above comments are made from wondering if 'swinging' and porn are indicative of an aspect of human sexuality we have tended to somewhat demonise in our western societies.

John
NZ

 

[wintermile]

So your supposedly all loving god will turn his back and pretend to forget these "sinful" people?

Can't a christian be "sinful" then repent before death and have salvation?

These sinful people are imposters. Their objective does not include having a relationship with Yeshua. Yeshua will not forget them.

If they are His sheep, they will repent.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Of course because morality is subjective.

Even if it were, I doubt that subjective morality is consistent with Christian ethics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[madaz]

Even if it were, I doubt that subjective morality is consistent with Christian ethics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I very much doubt that subjective morality is consistent with christian ethics also Mark, but that doesnt stop christians demonstrating ethical behavior consistent with subjective morality. Christianity is fragmenting into thousands of denominations because they can not reach a mutual consensus.

Yet they all claim to be christians.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Of course because morality is subjective.

I'm quite sure that morality is objective.

 

[madaz]

These sinful people are imposters. Their objective does not include having a relationship with Yeshua. Yeshua will not forget them.

If they are His sheep, they will repent.

So if they repent afterwards will yeshua grant them salvation?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I very much doubt that subjective morality is consistent with christian ethics also Mark, but that doesnt stop christians demonstrating ethical behavior consistent with subjective morality. Christianity is fragmenting into thousands of denominations because they can not reach a mutual consensus.

Yet they all claim to be christians.

I disagree with that line of thinking regarding ethics. It sounds like you think that ethics must be completely intuitive and agreed upon in order to be objective, and that the slightest disagreement makes ethics subjective. I realize that some people talk about ethics in that way, but I think it is a poor distinction.

Morality can be objective in the sense that one can be correct or mistaken about moral values. Think of the shape of the Earth. It's true that we all have a "subjective" opinion about the Earth's shape because we form our opinions as individuals, but the Earth has an objective shape. One can be correct or mistaken about its true shape.

In this sense, saying that some view is "subjective" is completely trivial. There can be One True Ethics that describes right and wrong, and yet in principle everyone might be ignorant of such ethics.

It is only from the perspective of a moral subjectivist who believes that opinions or desires make something moral that fragmentation is evidence that others are moral subjectivists in some sense. Those others just don't see right and wrong as based on opinion or desire, even though they have opinions or desires regarding moral values. The charge that Christians are moral subjectivists is, thus, an illusion created by one's meta-ethical framework.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[madaz]

I'm quite sure that morality is objective.

I believe morality is subjective, but I'm not sure about it.

 

[Johnnz]

Christian morality has its basis in what we believe about God as revealed to us. Thus, it is not merely subjective, but neither does it consist of a set of systematic moral axioms.

John
NZ

 

[sunshine456]

If you are referring to "swinging" as multi faithers; those that jump ship or adopt many stances with denominations. then it sounds as if it is someone who is lost and has not traditionally found truth in faith yet and the foundation of belief in JESUS CHRIST. If you are referring to a 'swinger" as someone whom is sexually active with multi-partners then it is IMMORAL by all things defined within that context.

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son lord JESUS CHRIST forever>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[Rajni]

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]Here I see that church history has not done well with sex too often. The Genesis story has been traditionally understood to be about clothing; nakedness is inherently shameful and wrong. I no longer accept that reading of those texts. There is a general interest in the human body and sex, and the female body has become highly eroticised. A more general acceptance of our sexuality to include far more appropriate social nudity could result in a significant reduction of our sexually charged presentation of the human body.

My above comments are made from wondering if 'swinging' and porn are indicative of an aspect of human sexuality we have tended to somewhat demonise in our western societies.[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif] Good points! God even asked them, "Who said you were naked?" He didn't think it was such a big deal (obviously, since that's how He made them! )

I agree that if such things weren't condemned so much, the 'forbidden fruit' factor would more likely be eliminated, resulting in people being less inclined towards those things. As the saying goes, "what you resist, persists." If part of the fun is the (perceived) wrongness of something, and that perception of wrongness is removed, it loses it's thrill.

When the morality-police get the vapors over activities they find offensive to their sensibilities, they can actually make those activities seem more attractive, and they've lost the 'battle' (if there is one) before it even begins. Reverse psychology in action!

[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,sans-serif] -

[/FONT]

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Christian-swinger is a bit of an oxymoron...

"Swinging" as it's called would be a direct violation of biblical teachings (the bible, being the book that defines what it means to be a Christian).

...I guess it adds to the ever-growing subset of the population that wants to still call themselves a "Christian", but decides they want to write their own rule book "and everyone else just has to accept it".

Rather than doing what I did at age 15, which is simply just saying "I don't believe what's in this book, so I guess I just won't call myself a Christian anymore", some people decide that they want to still have a certain label, so they decide that they'll just ignore the parts of the book they don't like, and make everyone else change their interpretations in order to have their cake and eat it to.

...it's seems to be growing. I've even come across people who claim to be "Christian", but say they don't believe in a God . I've asked them "well, doesn't that just make you an Atheist like me?"...and they come back with something like "well, no, I like some of the teachings in the book so I'm still a Christian, there's more to it than just believing in a deity..."

...as I've always said to these types of folks, rather than trying to make lousy misinterpretations about the book & religion in order to suit your personal preferences, you should just start your own church/religion (since that's what you're essentially doing anyway).

Instead of these folks calling themselves "Christian Swingers", why not just start their own "Church of Sexual exploration" or something like that?

 

[seashale76]

No- it isn't morally acceptable.

For the Christian, everything can be related back to communion/eucharist. Marriage is a sacrament in which a couple is united spiritually and are to help each other on the path of salvation. Marriage is a type of martyrdom where you deny yourself for the other. This is why Orthodox marriage involves the crowning, which represents martyrdom. You also aren't joined together with someone who also isn't in communion. When you engage in fornication- it is a proclamation that you are refusing to deny yourself for the sake of Christ and are choosing to engage your passions- you are knowingly excommunicating yourself. When one is baptized into Christ they are part of the body of Christ- the temple of the Holy Spirit- receiving Christ in the Holy Mysteries. Willfully sinning in this manner is serious business- one risks their soul unless they repent and return to the hospital for what ails us.

 

[Joykins]

Are you sure that link you provided is really a joke site?

I found this there-

"To summarize, we feel a Christian threesome is morally acceptable if it meets these conditions: It must be composed of one man and two women, all of whom recognize and maintain proper sex roles for men and women in and out of the bedroom"

Excluding the female/male/male combination of threesome seems conspicuously christian to me.

I found it hilarious. It's so over the top. I guess that's why I thought it was a joke site.