Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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".
No, but they aren't equivalent.
Deontology or virtue ethics don't require a victim for an act to be immoral.
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.
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.
[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.
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?
Of course because morality is subjective.
Even if it were, I doubt that subjective morality is consistent with Christian ethics.
eudaimonia,
Mark
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.
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'm quite sure that morality is objective.
[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![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]
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?