Please help me

[Polycarp_fan]

Odd statement when you have " Liliths lovetoy" in your usertitle. Isnt a toy an object/material possession?

Lilith was far from a lovely story of a wayward lover.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I prefer to think that my wife belongs to me and I to her. Not in the straw man material possession sense you make it out to be, but as two people with one flesh. I am just as much hers as she is mine. She is my helper and respects me, I cherish her and love her as my equal.

It has to do with the poetry of God and His people. Christ and the Church.

A spotless bride adorned for the bridegroom.

Oh how Satan hates purity.

And certain others of a certain political, philosophical, spiritual, religious and social bent.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I prefer to think that my wife belongs to me and I to her. Not in the straw man material possession sense you make it out to be, but as two people with one flesh. I am just as much hers as she is mine. She is my helper and respects me, I cherish her and love her as my equal.

As jmverville spotted, my beef is not so much with current and/or recent interpretations of scripture, but with the historical context in which the books of the Bible (both OT and NT) were written. Christianity hardly had an egalitarian stance on the topic of gender. Just reading the writings of the church fathers, any of them, suffices to show that. Note also how it was the Churches that protested against female suffrage.

And as for the whole "straw man"-thing, I kindly point you to the Jewish way of grouping the "Ten Utterances" (a.k.a. the "Ten commandments").

Alternatively, you may also look at the laws pertaining to rape, which pretty much follow the rationale of "if you damage the goods, you have to buy them", or at the way virgin girls were treated as spoils of war (although God would have preferred them dead).

My beef is indeed not with Jesus. For the context of the time, he was AMAZINGLY egalitarian, not to say anti-sexist. His opposition to divorce was, in its historical context, a flaming defense of the rights of women, who at that time could be cast aside by their husbands whenever they wished it.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Lilith was far from a lovely story of a wayward lover.

Indeed. It is a deeply misogynist myth that (literally) demonizes women who do not "know their place", desiring to be treated as equals rather than subservient "helpers".
That's probably why Jewish feminists (and I, of course) have re-discovered the tale for themselves. To me, Lilith is the quintessential strong woman, and a symbol of untamed nature. That's why I came up with my rather eccentric custom title, you know?

As for the "lovetoy" that another poster drew attention to: apart from its being a fun title rather than an earnest appellation, Lilith is hardly a real person that you could be subservient to. If you wish, you might view it as a tongue-in-cheek response to a notorious poster's tendency to describe himself as a "Bond-Slave of Christ".

 

[tanzanos]

Sure, it feels good and what not, but it makes your soul black.

Wow; the soul has colour????

I always say that the people who are ardently against sex, are the ones not getting any sex.

Sex brought you into this world. How bad can it be?

"Hypocrites and pharisees"

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Indeed. It is a deeply misogynist myth that (literally) demonizes women who do not "know their place", desiring to be treated as equals rather than subservient "helpers".
That's probably why Jewish feminists (and I, of course) have re-discovered the tale for themselves. To me, Lilith is the quintessential strong woman, and a symbol of untamed nature. That's why I came up with my rather eccentric custom title, you know?

Feminism is the greatest gain that promiscuous men have ever achieved.

Murphy Brown tonight and who cares tomorrow.

She won't either.

 

[angellica]

I always say that the people who are ardently against sex, are the ones not getting any sex.

That's redundant. They aren't "getting any" because they don't, for lack of a better word, advertise for it. They don't look for it. They don't offer it. They choose not to get any.

 

[Freodin]

I could understand when people engage in swinging, and have no problem with that behaviour... even as Christians.

After all, a wife is a husbands property, and vice verse... and it is up to them what they do with their respective property, not up to you.


But I would not know why they would be specifically "blessed".

 

[Verv]

1. It's not a baseless stereotype. There are many third party sources that do a good job of recounting the general "value" that women have been given in the past.

2. Ok, but how is it sick?? How do you go about determining that their soul is black.

3. Why do you think that the bible says that this is a sin (which, from my understanding, it does not)? Answer the "Why" please.

(1) It is unfortunate that in the past people have abused certain Bible passages to degrade women and treat them like they, by themselves, are the property and that the husband does not belong to the wife as well.

But by and large... That is not Christian.

(2) To work for sexual gratification in any way that is outside of marriage is wrong and it takes the priorities that you have and flips them over on their head.

You get married in part to quell your sexual desires and to share an exclusive love with someone, to become one flesh. To then, even with each other's consent, sleep with other people violates the fundamental creed of your marriage and prioritizes sexual gratification over the values of God and the sanctity of your marriage and family.

(3) Sexual gratification without a committed marriage is a sin because if we were to value sexual gratification highly we would be worst people in the sense that it would become a controlling feature of our life and lead to valuing beauty over goodness, valuing vanity over righteousness, valuing the physical over the spiritual, etc.

We'd have baseless, materialist lives.

Come to think of it, didn't Abraham, David, and Solomon have concubines? Isn't that the same thing?

During this time period things were different because when the militaries went to war and thousands of men died, they then had thousands of women without husbands; it was practical to practice polygamy and other things.

As jmverville spotted, my beef is not so much with current and/or recent interpretations of scripture, but with the historical context in which the books of the Bible (both OT and NT) were written. Christianity hardly had an egalitarian stance on the topic of gender. Just reading the writings of the church fathers, any of them, suffices to show that. Note also how it was the Churches that protested against female suffrage.

And as for the whole "straw man"-thing, I kindly point you to the Jewish way of grouping the "Ten Utterances" (a.k.a. the "Ten commandments").

Alternatively, you may also look at the laws pertaining to rape, which pretty much follow the rationale of "if you damage the goods, you have to buy them", or at the way virgin girls were treated as spoils of war (although God would have preferred them dead).

My beef is indeed not with Jesus. For the context of the time, he was AMAZINGLY egalitarian, not to say anti-sexist. His opposition to divorce was, in its historical context, a flaming defense of the rights of women, who at that time could be cast aside by their husbands whenever they wished it.

This is good analysis and I admire it.

The Old Testament is flawed... Because if it wasn't flawed for us, we would have never needed Christ to come and clarify it and give unto us new standards.

I can agree with this all.

Wow; the soul has colour????

I always say that the people who are ardently against sex, are the ones not getting any sex.

Sex brought you into this world. How bad can it be?

"Hypocrites and pharisees"

... Yeah, I do not have sex because I am living a pure life and waiting for marriage. I admit I do not "get any" and I guess I am not only satisfied with that fact but proud of it.

However, I go on dates and have a healthy life with ladies. You do no thave to worry about that.

I think though we've already hit on the topic you question.

 

[morningstar2651]

...


2. I realize that swinging couples wouldn't think so, but most of the rest of married folk would agree that it's sick.

3. Committing adultery is a sin. There are issues of trust and honesty, as well as issues of disease (AIDS, HIV, etc.) that come up with sharing partners.

2.) I think sour cream is absolutely disgusting, so I don't put it on my food. I don't mind if you like it, but it's just not for me.

3.) AIDS isn't caused by sharing partners. It's a disease that can be spread through sexual contact with somebody that has the disease. This assumes that, somewhere along the line, someone is sleeping with a person with HIV and transmitting it. Going back to the OP:

My wife and I have agreed to share each other exclusively with another couple who are our best friends.

Unless one of them already has HIV, or someone has broken this agreement, they won't all magically get HIV.

I'm surprised nobody brought up Abraham.

Genesis
16:1 Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
16:2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
16:3 And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
16:4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
16:5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
16:6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thine hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
16:7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
16:8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
16:9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
16:10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
16:13 And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?
16:14 Wherefore the well was called Beerlahairoi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.
16:15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.
16:16 And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.

 

[wkonwtrtom]

Last month we had a discussion on this over in Christian Philosophy & Ethics in the thread "Swingers - Swapping Partners". While we had several people that would not look past their dogma about what defined adultery, several members posted some very detailed, scriptural, and/or factual posts. Unfortunately, those that maintained their dogma against any rational arguement spent most of their time doing nothing more than name calling and repeatedly saying things like "you're wrong".

Just a few of the points made in that discussion:

Approximately 3-5% of American couples say that they have at one time been or are currently swingers. That is about 4-6 million couples. That is about 1 couple in every 20-30. Think about that - you may even have a neighbor or co-worker that is a swinger. Maybe even the couple sitting in front of you at church. Maybe even your pastor or doctor.

Love is not and does not equal sex. Period. Sex is only a part of Love.

Biblical adultery is defined as betrayal of a relationship, whether with a spouse or with God. Note the word betrayal. This does not apply to the subject of swingers since everything is mutaully consented to.

Fornication (pornea) is defined as religious sexual idolotry in every context (not consensual casual sex). Again, this does not apply to the subject of swingers.

These two words have been used by the church since Augustine to control the masses by labeling any sex as sin, except that which the church says is not. Never mind that the scriptures don't back up the traditions, as long as it controls the people and makes them fall in line with church teaching, it is right. This is why many people think "that it is sick". Just as Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church, many people have come to see this subject as nothing more than the legalism that it really is.

The one flesh arguement does not hold up when looking at the many polygamous marriages in the Old Testament or in the early church itself. Never meant literally "one flesh" but of one mind, spirit, or nature. This is a phrase that is used out of context all the time. No one will bother to try to justify their position against the fact that God (in the Bible) actually allowed, and in some cases prescribed, multiple wives. As many as 50% of all swingers in the US are practicing, born-again Christians by their own admission. This includes thousands of pastors and lay leaders in virtually every denomination.

STDs are always brought up by those that would place restictions on swinging for Christians, even if the facts would get in the way. The facts are that STDs are virtually unheard of in the swinging community, mainly due to the fact that swinging is generally not a willy-nilly orgy of strangers, but a selective process between couples. The fact that drugs are used at an even lower rate than the general population limits HIV and AIDS, even among bi-sexual swingers. Swingers generally make a habit of a healthier lifestyle in diet and exercise. They also generally practice safer sex with anyone outside a narrow group of close friends, such as the OP asked about.

The divorce rate among regularly practicing swingers is between 5%-10%. The divorce rate among Born-again practicing Christians is almost equal to the general public rate of 45%-50%. More than 65% of swingers say that the experience has brought the couple closer together with only 5% saying that it hurt their relationship with their spouse. According to most swingers, being able to work through seeing your spouse with another person sexually makes every other issue in a marriage easy to work through by comparison. The trust and honesty issues are completely taken care of witht he completely open communication needed to be swingers.

There is a lot more information about this topic spread all over the internet and in written form. Those in the church that oppose swinging, do not argue the points but instead resort to banishment, name calling, and even excommunication of those that publically support swinging. But instead of causing Christians to not begin swinging, the numbers are growing, albeit mostly under the cloak of anonymity to avoid the inevitable conflict. If you are willing to look at the information out there and be open to the possibility that swinging may indeed be something that Christians are allowed to do, you might find that what you have been taught about sex previously is completely wrong.

 

[Verv]

First -- it doesn't matter how many people do it. It doesn't make it right. Andit doesn't matter if your doctor or Pastor do it -- they might be wrong, too.

Second, the Bible says that in marriage man and woman become of one flesh and that nothing should separate that; that is to say, they become of one flesh through their sexual bond.

We are also told to enter our marriage to control our sexual urges, by Paul, and what have you done to control your sexual urges if you treat your marriage as open to engaging in even more widespread sexual extravagance?

 

[NailsII]

Ive been arguing with a person that says that swingers are blessed by God

That's easy - how would they know?

I prefer not to think of myself as an object and a material possession.

Absolutely.

I prefer to think that my wife belongs to me and I to her. Not in the straw man material possession sense you make it out to be, but as two people with one flesh. I am just as much hers as she is mine. She is my helper and respects me, I cherish her and love her as my equal.

I can relate to that, but sometimes I wish my wife was a subsordinate - when she's watching the soaps and I want to watch the football....

First -- it doesn't matter how many people do it. It doesn't make it right. Andit doesn't matter if your doctor or Pastor do it -- they might be wrong, too.

Second, the Bible says that in marriage man and woman become of one flesh and that nothing should separate that; that is to say, they become of one flesh through their sexual bond.

We are also told to enter our marriage to control our sexual urges, by Paul, and what have you done to control your sexual urges if you treat your marriage as open to engaging in even more widespread sexual extravagance?

In theory I agree, I could have sex with someone else, but I could not allow my wife to have sex with someone else. It just doesn't seem right. (Jealosy is a wonderful thing, no?)
But what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is, quite frankly, none of our business.

 

[quatona]

Yeah, having sex with someone who is not your spouse is a sick and depraved act.

Sure, it feels good and what not, but it makes your soul black.

And marital sex makes your soul green with pink dots. So there.

 

[sidhe]

Ah, cultural leftovers from a time when wives were still counted among the husband's possessions, and thus fell under property rights. Isn't it grand?

I <3 Cultural Leftovers. They make excellent dog food. I, personally, wouldn't eat them.

 

[wkonwtrtom]

First -- it doesn't matter how many people do it. It doesn't make it right. Andit doesn't matter if your doctor or Pastor do it -- they might be wrong, too.

Correct. And no matter how many mis-translate and skew the Bible to fit their agenda and rely on tradition instead of what God actually says, they might be wrong too. If your belief system, your church, or your favorite pastor preaches things that put legalism back onto believers, they are wrong and are to be rejected. So if non-biblical restrictions on sexual activity are taught, they would be wrong too. God actually limits very little sexual activity other than that which is not idolatrous, selfish, or unloving.

Second, the Bible says that in marriage man and woman become of one flesh and that nothing should separate that; that is to say, they become of one flesh through their sexual bond.

We are also told to enter our marriage to control our sexual urges, by Paul, and what have you done to control your sexual urges if you treat your marriage as open to engaging in even more widespread sexual extravagance?

If the Bible says that in marriage, a single man and a single woman become "one flesh", then explain polygamy, concubines, and non-idolatrous prostitution. None of these were condemned by God, in fact, all were either encouraged, approved, or rewarded by God. So were all of Soloman's wives and concubines all "one flesh" with him and with each other? No.
Paul was about the most anti-sex person in the Bible. Many of the things he wrote were of his own opinion and not the Lord's, by his own admission. Let's keep the context correct. 1Cor7:9 says: But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. That does not say "to bottle up sex". That is church tradition, not scripture. Burn here means "to be inflamed with sexual desire". The key word is "inflamed" - overcome by, incensed, indignant. Being married can take care of the "inflaming". That is a given. But the verse says nothing about enjoying additional sexual activities, not for the removal of the "inflaming" but simply for temporal enjoyment of the act. The marriage takes care of the basic need.
Think of it this way - if you do not eat, eventually you will "burn" with hunger. But just because you eat regularly and do not "burn" with hunger, does not mean that you can not eat something just for the pleasure of eating it. Yet we do not condemn eating because we enjoy eating something - only when it becomes gluttony does it become sin. Same with sex. Just because someone enjoys sex when they are not "burning" for it, does not mean that it is wrong to partake of it. Only if it becomes a lustful drive to have it above everything else does it become sin. (lust = overwhelming desire to take that which is someone else's for your own possession)

 

[tanzanos]

If the Bible says that in marriage, a single man and a single woman become "one flesh", then explain polygamy, concubines, and non-idolatrous prostitution. None of these were condemned by God, in fact, all were either encouraged, approved, or rewarded by God. So were all of Soloman's wives and concubines all "one flesh" with him and with each other?

You forgot Lot having sex with his own daughters and having children with them. Now why did God approve of incest is beyond me. Incest is prevalent in the OT and it seems God is very fond of it!

 

[wkonwtrtom]

You get married in part to quell your sexual desires and to share an exclusive love with someone, to become one flesh. To then, even with each other's consent, sleep with other people violates the fundamental creed of your marriage and prioritizes sexual gratification over the values of God and the sanctity of your marriage and family.

So having mutual consent of both spouses violates the fundamental creed of a marriage? I thought that the fundamental creed of a marriage was mutual respect and honor. Coming to an agreement with your spouse sounds like respect and honor to me, no matter what the subject.
God's "values" are to love Him and to love your neighbor as yourself. As long as both spouses love God and treat other people with the same love we show ourselves, then how is having sex with someone other than your spouse automatically prioritizing sexual gratification over God's values? As for the "sanctity" of "marriage and family", there is no scriptural basis for calling a marriage sanctified. God and our relationship with Him can be sanctified. We are sanctified by the blood of Jesus. But marriages are not sanctified, except by church tradition. If they were sanctified, then Paul is a heretic for telling people to stay single as he was, or for even intimating that being single is better than being married.

(3) Sexual gratification without a committed marriage is a sin because if we were to value sexual gratification highly we would be worst people in the sense that it would become a controlling feature of our life and lead to valuing beauty over goodness, valuing vanity over righteousness, valuing the physical over the spiritual, etc.

We'd have baseless, materialist lives.

Only if we allowed it to become controlling. Beauty and goodness can co-exist. The Physical and spiritual can co-exist. And unless you live in a cave, by yourself, without any possessions, you live a materialistic life. Materialism and spiritualism both have their place in this life. As long as things do not own you, nothing is wrong with owning things. Our base is still God.

During this time period things were different because when the militaries went to war and thousands of men died, they then had thousands of women without husbands; it was practical to practice polygamy and other things.

So it was OK because it was "practical"? Or did God allow an exception to His "one man- one woman" law because under those conditions, the law would be bad? No - there was no "one man-one woman" law. God allowed it during those times because He allowed it all along.

The Old Testament is flawed... Because if it wasn't flawed for us, we would have never needed Christ to come and clarify it and give unto us new standards.

The OT was not flawed - we humans are flawed and the OT was meant to point that out. Jesus had to come to offer an alternative to the law (FAITH) that we could be saved from the law. The only "new" standard was to consolidate all of the OT into the 2 NT Commandments.

 

[wkonwtrtom]

Ah - but Lot did not do it willingly, he was unconcious from being drunk. The daughters basically raped their father. And the nations created by the offspring were later listed by God as ones that Isreal was to utterly destroy. But they were not under the Mosaic Law since it had not even been given yet. The Abrahamic Covenant did not cover these things.
So God was not so enamored with direct incest (half siblings were allowed to marry in the non-Jewish world). God only forbade direct relation incest in the Mosaic Law(siblings, children and parent, step parent and child, etc.). Outside of that, cousins and beyond were permitted to marry.

 

[Verv]

I have now met Christians arguing that it is proper to have open marriages.

I mean, really, what am I supposed to say to that?

Christ noted that He would prefer that people go without spouses like him, but if they must control their urges to take a wife or husband. The idea here was to control your urges with your spouse...

Not to embellish them.

I cannot believe I actually live ina day and age where someone is telling me that Christians can visit non-idolatrous prostitutes, be a swinger, etc.