Swingers - Swapping Partners

Status
Not open for further replies.

Floatingaxe

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2007
14,757
877
71
Ontario, Canada
✟22,726.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Really? So, What did God mean in Eph 5:22-24, and what are you doing presuming to tell me anything?

Open the scriptures yourself and tell me what they say. I'd be interested in your discerning powers.

I have the God-given authority to declare error when I see it, as a child of the King. Speaking of presumption, do you really think that real live born again, Spirit-filled Christians would be swayed by this junk you are trying to sanitize?
 
Upvote 0

Floatingaxe

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2007
14,757
877
71
Ontario, Canada
✟22,726.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
No, Jesus said it. Its OK if everyone involved consents.

No He did not. Prove it.

I'll wait...

Waiting3.gif
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
then He also consents to 2 adults mutually out partying & getting drunk
& then driving home together while they have fun.

Drunkeness is sin - premarital sex is sin - orgies are sin.
The pagan orgies were all in consent too - God condemned those.

Consent doesn't do anything where sin's concerned.

& lets ask this,
WHO SET THIS MORAL LAW UP THAT ALL HAVE TO CONSENT?
:confused: you?


What if someone elses "free will" decides that just the people
involved have to consent? So they might set a different
rule & standard for right & wrong than you do in their moral code.
Who are YOU to tell them they can't? & who are YOU to set this
law up over them??? :scratch:

This is the problem when you make man his own free moral
agent & the authority on right & wrong; it opens up a can
of worms as to anyone doing anything in their own personal
moral code that may just violate yours.

What of the idiot that thinks it's "love" to molest young boys?
NAMBLA seems to think it's fine and consentual.
What of the teen boy who loves his female teacher & is sexually involved w/ her? inappropriate behavior with animals also.

The lists go on.
GOD is the moral lawgiver, not man. It's not up to "consent" - & we can see that by what people do on earth & how they justify horrible things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeacaHeaven
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally Posted by LightHorseman
Really? So, What did God mean in Eph 5:22-24, and what are you doing presuming to tell me anything?
pssst. The same thing you're doing by presuming to place your
self created Moral Code over all mankind that ALL parties
have to be "consenting" for anything to be right.

Clearly we see that it must be wrong for a parent
to discipline their child; the child doesn't consent
to a spanking or being grounded for a week...
or having to brush their teeth before beddytime...

The lists are endless to the flaw in your logic & reasoning
here. God set the rules, yet you want to decide that
you know better & more & can set the moral compass
for the entire world on good & evil.

NOW THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED EVIL wouldn't it???
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeacaHeaven
Upvote 0

god's_pawn

moving as God wills
Nov 14, 2008
387
15
✟15,607.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
If you're going to get into the hypotheticals of future maybes, well, then we're ALL sinners because you chose not to have sex today, and the child that would have come from that union MAY have gone on to cure cancer.

Thats just silly. We're dealing with concrete examples here please, or none at all.

I'm more than happy to accept that you probably can't ever find an example of a person who could be killed with the willing consent of everyone involved, and thats what makes murder wrong. However, I bet you CAN find people who swing where everyone involved hHAS given their informed consent... and, since that is the issue here, perhaps that is what is best discussed, rather than arcane obscure hypotheticals about the missionary work that a suicidal person MIGHT have gone oin, at some point in the undefined future?

and since when does God always work in concrete examples? your argument about me sinning because i didn't have sex fails because it is using the "end justifies the means" agenda. this is not a valid argument. ultimately we don't know everything so one thing or another may end up doing more good than bad; however, we simply don't know and i'd rather trust that God knows what He's doing when He says "do this, don't do that" rather than hope i can find a loophole (such as your consent deal) so i can satisfy my carnal desires. sure, you can try to rationalize everything and bring it to a point so you can break it down how you want to, but sometimes you just have to go by faith that God knows what He's doing. based on the arguments i've seen both for and against swinging, i'd have to say that i believe God is against it. since obviously He has everyone's best interests in mind, i'm not going to try to find a reason why i could swing. and i honestly believe that if God's definition of sin was about consent, He would've made that clear. the number one commandment as given by Jesus was this: "Love the Lord your God with all your soul with all you strength and with all your mind." frankly, i don't see that commandment being played out in the act of swinging. that looks more to me like "love yourself and do as you please."
 
Upvote 0

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
35
Indiana
✟21,439.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Perhpas this time I spoke in haste. Yes, it certainly is possible for even the most committed Christian to make mistakes and not act in accordance with Christ's commands... but if I may clarify, I meant it is impossible to act in accordance with Christ's commands (i.e. love thy neighbour as thyself) and do anything immoral or wrong.

Perhaps, but we are talking about human beings. There will never be a perfect follower of these commands.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
35
Indiana
✟21,439.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Paul was speaking about a woman's role in the church, not in an internet forum. Try again.

(To be fair you are talking to the Church, we are all Christians on this thread.)

On the other hand, you are mostly correct. This was to a specific Church group that Paul was writing to.
 
Upvote 0

JohnT

Regular Member
Oct 27, 2007
823
117
Finger Lakes, NY
✟19,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
John T,

If you had read my posts and those of CC, you would know how I can say the things I have said.

I did not read any other thing that you posted in any other forum. Once is quite sufficiently appalling. and to be sure yours was the first reply I made since coming home from brain surgery. Im typong is atrocious, and perhaps my syntax may not make sense, but please bear with me, OK?

I spent more than 20 years just accepting what the church, pastors, and more senior believers said was true and what the Bible meant. Then I opened my eyes and started looking into things myself. Looking into the true meaning and context of words and scripture. Looking into the history of the church and when and by whom certain doctrines were developed and how they were promulgated. Looking into why those doctrines were spread throughout the church, etc. Using more than the easily attainable references, commentaries, and Bible school materials.
Evidently, you did look far enough. I defy, no I CALL YOU OUT to supply proofs of the things you say. You refute my point, all backed up by Scripture, cited by many using PRIMARY resources, (and I can get them in Hebrew or Greek, if you like) saying how God says that he detests the things you find acceptale

One of the things I found was that sexuality was quite a bit more free in the early church, and throughout the OT, than it is in today's church. I found that pagan converts and Gnostic influences changed that and began to make sex a thing of evil rather than a God given thing of beauty and enjoyment. And that once Augustine declared sex to actually be sinful under almost every instance, the church began using that to condemn and hold the masses in bondage, generally for control and for money, basically in the same way that the Catholic Church held salvation hostage for indulgences prior to Luther.
That is a whopper, and it smells like sulfur. AGAIN CFR (cite for reference from a CHURCH source)

A couple of sources, if you are interested, are Dirt, Sex, & Greed by L. William Countryman and Divine Sex by Philo Thelos. There are many others, though many are from the liberal end of the Christian spectrum and as such are often completely disregarded just for that reason. But even a broken clock can be right twice a day and when other more conservative sources concur or at least come to the same conclusions on the same facts, even the most liberal teachers can be right.
Philo (20 BC to 50 AD) was hardly a Christian, or an imparcial onserver. A cursory look at his ethice and valsue says that. The soul is first aroused by the stimuli of sensual pleasures...
Sensual things are placed above spiritual; and wealth is regarded as the highest good. Too great a value especially is placed upon the human nous; and things are wrongly judged. Man in his folly even opposes God, and thinks to scale heaven and subjugate the entire earth. In the field of politics, for example, he attempts to rise from the position of leader of the people to that of ruler (Philo cites Joseph as a type of this kind)
from Wikipedia

No rational-thinking person can make a case for Philo being either objective, or in agreement with the true and Holy God of the Bible from the cursory evidence I presented above.

I believe that I have made my case and supplied some reference material for those that are actually interested in searching for the truth about sexual freedom under Christ. The reference material provides the evidence needed to point out errors on this subject.
You made nothing of the sort, for I just shot it full of holes.

As far as surrendering my pulpit, since God put me here, I would not bow to any man's call for that. I would preach to the rocks if that was all that was left. At least until God Himself moves me somewhere else. And I know that goes for the hundreds of pastors in evangelical and conservative churches in the US that believe the same thing on this subject.
Perhaps your god put you there, but it is NOT the true, triune God of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph. Again your assertion anout of "hundreds of pastors" needs to verified by onjective data. Your saying so does not ipso facto constitute a fact.

Thanks for your input though. I do challenge you to check out the reference material cited. It may just spur you to look into it further.
Grace and peace
And I challenge YOU to read the Bible to see if the promotion of abominations, as you do here be truly said in Scripture. Scripture, and expecially the autogaphs are my prime source. I go to others for help, but not if they have an antiholiness agenda, as you seem to do.

BTW when was the last time you visited a inappropriate content shop or saw it on the Internet?
 
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
and since when does God always work in concrete examples? your argument about me sinning because i didn't have sex fails because it is using the "end justifies the means" agenda. this is not a valid argument. ultimately we don't know everything so one thing or another may end up doing more good than bad; however, we simply don't know and i'd rather trust that God knows what He's doing when He says "do this, don't do that" rather than hope i can find a loophole (such as your consent deal) so i can satisfy my carnal desires. sure, you can try to rationalize everything and bring it to a point so you can break it down how you want to, but sometimes you just have to go by faith that God knows what He's doing. based on the arguments i've seen both for and against swinging, i'd have to say that i believe God is against it. since obviously He has everyone's best interests in mind, i'm not going to try to find a reason why i could swing. and i honestly believe that if God's definition of sin was about consent, He would've made that clear. the number one commandment as given by Jesus was this: "Love the Lord your God with all your soul with all you strength and with all your mind." frankly, i don't see that commandment being played out in the act of swinging. that looks more to me like "love yourself and do as you please."
I have faith that God knew what he was doing when he tried to cut through all the minutiae and outdated legalism and condensed the law to the 2 greatest commandments.

And you started the "end justifies the means" line with your hypothetical that murder is wrong because the dead person won't go on to be a missionary, remember?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Oh, so now Paul is sexist?
No, to use it out of context against women would be.

The context of it involves Shepherding the corporate church,
not silencing females in general who cant' teach or correct
men.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeacaHeaven
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
No, to use it out of context against women would be.

The context of it involves Shepherding the corporate church,
not silencing females in general who cant' teach or correct
men.
Personally, I consider myself a feminist, I think women are every bit as capable and competent as men, don't get me wrong.

What irks me is that a self proclaimed female Biblical literalist trys to tell you every single word of the Bible is true and means exactly what it says.

Except the bit that says
"11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
Apparently that doesn't actually mean that women aren't to teach men on matters spiritual. That means something else.

For the record, I WELCOME women teaching on spiritual matters, so long as the aren't hipocrits. And saying "every word of the Bible is true and means exactly what it says, trying to re-interpret it is blasphemy", if you are a woman, saying it to a man, IS hypocrisy.
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Personally, I consider myself a feminist, I think women are every bit as capable and competent as men, don't get me wrong.

What irks me is that a self proclaimed female Biblical literalist trys to tell you every single word of the Bible is true and means exactly what it says.

Except the bit that says
"11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
Apparently that doesn't actually mean that women aren't to teach men on matters spiritual. That means something else.

For the record, I WELCOME women teaching on spiritual matters, so long as the aren't hipocrits. And saying "every word of the Bible is true and means exactly what it says, trying to re-interpret it is blasphemy", if you are a woman, saying it to a man, IS hypocrisy.
Well I don't want to take this off topic into women preaching & that
whole passage... or biblical literality....
As I've seen in the past, those are very long threads all on their own.

But if you take into consideration the female teachers in the NT &
Priscilla who did teach a man, then that verse can still be very literal
becuz all it does is help set parameters on the type of teaching
that IS allowed.
There are other literal verses that help shape those. We don't take
just 1 verse alone & isolate it & keep it in a box to obey that w/out
other scriptures that shape the full meaning.

A verse can mean something literally but not as literally as another
would take it in its proper context too.
Lots of variables on things.:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeacaHeaven
Upvote 0

LightHorseman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 11, 2006
8,123
363
✟10,643.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
AU-Liberals
Well I don't want to take this off topic into women preaching & that
whole passage... or biblical literality....
As I've seen in the past, those are very long threads all on their own.

But if you take into consideration the female teachers in the NT &
Priscilla who did teach a man, then that verse can still be very literal
becuz all it does is help set parameters on the type of teaching
that IS allowed.
There are other literal verses that help shape those. We don't take
just 1 verse alone & isolate it & keep it in a box to obey that w/out
other scriptures that shape the full meaning.

A verse can mean something literally but not as literally as another
would take it in its proper context too.
Lots of variables on things.:)

I am more than happy to accept that different people can interpret passages in different ways, and that context plays a big role. Indeed, I wish more people around here accepted that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

god's_pawn

moving as God wills
Nov 14, 2008
387
15
✟15,607.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I have faith that God knew what he was doing when he tried to cut through all the minutiae and outdated legalism and condensed the law to the 2 greatest commandments.

sure that much is easy. but there is a difference between that and then believing in your consent deal. remember the #1 commandment is to love God first. other people is second. i still only see swinging as loving yourself which really isn't promoted anywhere in the Bible.

And you started the "end justifies the means" line with your hypothetical that murder is wrong because the dead person won't go on to be a missionary, remember?

good point, my bad. but even if following previous laws set by God so blindly as you think i am, i'd rather do that then taking the rather big risk of causing more harm when i make a consent loophole.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.