Homosexuals Embrace Adultery...

[seer]

It hardly gets more "open minded" than 20 person orgies that spread Monkeypox.

And in our world, that is a good thing....

[rogue06]

I disagree with that very broad definition and posit that the much of the populace do not use that term in that way.

A lot of folks confuse fornication for adultery.

[rogue06]

He actually started out all liberal hippy. By the 60's he was a John Bircher (except in his sexual proclivities, apparently).

Reminds me a bit of John Norman and his Gor books.

Started out pretty good. Then at some point something snapped and he became obsessed with something like the BDS&M lifestyle where the men brutalized the women and the women all grew to accept if not love it. He could spend an entire chapter discussing the proper may to chain slaves together when marching them single file

[One Bad Pig]

As people in the thread are using different definitions for the same term, by "serial adultery", I am referring to a violation of an expectation of mutual exclusivity, either by repeated violations against one person or violations against numerous partners sequentially. An example of the latter being Donald Trump's two divorces and three marriages and an example of the former being Trump's habitual infidelities while married. An "open marriage", by contrast, does not have an understanding of mutual exclusivity and so does not necessarily involve a violation of that (though such violations could still occur with partners outside that agreement).

Thanks.

We might imagine a communal living environment where members of the sect or "family" lived as common spouses and we might imagine something like that to be a (probably misguided) attempt to live closer to what we're told Heaven is like, where there is no marriage and everyone enjoys the same bond with their earthly spouse as they do their earthly adversaries. We can imagine no situation where violating an understanding of exclusive fidelity can at all resemble a heavenly ideal.

Yet such a communal living environment would violate Jesus' words no less than 'serial adultery'; "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (Mat. 22:29-30) We're told heaven is asexual, not open relationships.

As to belief and behavior, we'd be largely talking about attitudes regarding remarriage, whether after divorce or death of a spouse; the latter being discouraged and the former being equated with adultery (with the possible exemption of sexual immorality on the part of a spouse but I think John Piper has a good argument that this was in reference to the betrothal period and not a blanket exception). That's what we be talking about as a matter of stated principle: on matters of what churchgoers are willing to tolerate among their chosen spiritual and political leadership ... well, we don't have a great track record there that we can point back to when preaching sexual ethics.

-Sam

Thanks. Rereading 1 Cor. 7, I don't see remarriage of widows being any more discouraged than marriage itself. Regarding adultery, I haven't seen John Piper's argument, but in my understanding betrothal and marriage were treated essentially identically (to the point that sexual intercourse was often acceptable during the betrothal).

[Sam]

Thanks.

Yet such a communal living environment would violate Jesus' words no less than 'serial adultery'; "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (Mat. 22:29-30) We're told heaven is asexual, not open relationships.

Thanks. Rereading 1 Cor. 7, I don't see remarriage of widows being any more discouraged than marriage itself. Regarding adultery, I haven't seen John Piper's argument, but in my understanding betrothal and marriage were treated essentially identically (to the point that sexual intercourse was often acceptable during the betrothal).

I agree (I think) that a communal sexual congress, even in the shape of shared fidelity in a polyamorous group, would be wholly impermissible in a Christian sexual ethic, despite the tolerance for polyamorous relationships in Hebrew Scripture and then-contemporary Palestinian culture. But I also think we can imagine such an experiment entered into innocently, without a necessarily sinful intent. I'm not able to speculate on the sexual makeup of angelic beings but Christians do understand marriage to be an earthly analogy of heavenly experience and relationships: it's not illogical to see shared sexual partnership in a Christian "group marriage" as part of that marriage/Heaven analogy. But I agree that this would not be a typically successful or healthy endeavor: I think that many polyamorous families have existed virtuously enough through history so I wouldn't beat down too hard on the ethical nature of such relationships but, theologically, I think the door is closed on a Christian Swingers commune.

Piper summarized his argument here: the driving point being that Matthew, needing to clarify why Joseph would be justified in divorcing Mary, distinguishes "adultery" from "fornication", allowing for (re)marriage after a divorce during betrothal so as to not conflict with the absolute prohibitions found in other Gospel writings.

-Sam