Newbie and very confused šŸ˜

stormybrunette

New member
Hi all,

I am new to this forum after scrawling the internet for months researching poly.

My situation - live in the UK, Wales, married almost a decade, one child, M-Hetro F-Bisexual and both in our 20ā€™s with good careers.

Some back story - For as long as I can remember I have been bisexual - something I have only recently admitted to myself after years of trying to fight it away. I am a Christian also, and worry how on earth I can reconcile this to my faith?! I have had a handful of sexual encounters with women during my teenage years and if Iā€™m being honest, enjoyed them very much. Equally, the same with men. I am very much straight down the middle 50/50 which is hard going as Iā€™ll always be missing a part of me whether I am with a man or a woman. Some may call it greedy but I didnā€™t ask for any of this :(

Myself and my husband have toyed with threesomes and foursomes in our younger years before I found faith at which point, I just couldnā€™t see a way to reconcile. Hubby is more than happy for me to see other women and weā€™ve even discussed triads after watching the polyamory:married and dating series (which I know is often hard to find, especially once a couple is already established and we certainly donā€™t want to earn the tag ā€˜unicorn hunterā€™). Itā€™s me with the problem. I am just so confused and have no idea what to do :confused: plus, to make t more difficult I think Iā€™d like something committed if I were to go down the poly route such as poly-fi but then again, who knows?! :eek:

Anyway, VERY long intro so if youā€™ve made it this far then you deserve a medal! I guess itā€™s just nice to get this out in the open to people who may have some advice for us!
 
Hi stormy! It sounds like you have a lot to process with regards to the conflict between what you want your relationships to look like and your faith.

Certainly when youā€™re stepping outside the mainstream, youā€™re bound to encounter ways of thinking you may not have considered before. For instance, you said ā€œI think Iā€™d like something committed if I were to go down the poly route such as poly-fi...ā€

I just wanted to point out that commitment and sexual fidelity are two different things. If you did enter into a relationship with a woman, it does not mean you feel less committed to your current partner, right? Personally, I regard commitment as a promise to show up and put energy and focus into each of the important relationships in my life, and a promise to try work towards a solution when we hit bumps in the road rather than bailing on people. Certainly a couple can make additional agreements on top of that, but to me, those are the core of commitment.

Best of luck in your journey!
 
Hi stormy! It sounds like you have a lot to process with regards to the conflict between what you want your relationships to look like and your faith.

Certainly when youā€™re stepping outside the mainstream, youā€™re bound to encounter ways of thinking you may not have considered before. For instance, you said ā€œI think Iā€™d like something committed if I were to go down the poly route such as poly-fi...ā€

I just wanted to point out that commitment and sexual fidelity are two different things. If you did enter into a relationship with a woman, it does not mean you feel less committed to your current partner, right? Personally, I regard commitment as a promise to show up and put energy and focus into each of the important relationships in my life, and a promise to try work towards a solution when we hit bumps in the road rather than bailing on people. Certainly a couple can make additional agreements on top of that, but to me, those are the core of commitment.

Best of luck in your journey!

Yes that is exactly what I meant, see I have no clue when it comes to terminology! My degree didnā€™t cover poly language haha!

Thanks so much for your kind words. Do you have any advice for us at all? Like where to start? I have looked for support groups in my area but I canā€™t find any :(
 
I just wanted to touch a little bit on the Christianity aspect. As an Atheist who just started dating a Christian woman, I have been doing some reading on the Christian perspective. I have to say the argument against polyamory is very weak. It mostly relies on biased interpretation. At least that is my preliminary finding.
 
I just wanted to touch a little bit on the Christianity aspect. As an Atheist who just started dating a Christian woman, I have been doing some reading on the Christian perspective. I have to say the argument against polyamory is very weak. It mostly relies on biased interpretation. At least that is my preliminary finding.

Thank you for that, if you have the time to elaborate Iā€™d be super grateful :)
 
I am a Christian also, and worry how on earth I can reconcile this to my faith?!

I'll preface this, perhaps needlessly, by mentioning that I, too, am Christian, and haven't really had a problem resolving my faith with my sexuality (well, romantic outlook at least, I'm bi-romantic, heterosexual, but whatever, this is about you, now! ;) ).

The thing with resolving your polyamorous and bisexual nature with your faith is not especially difficult, in my opinion. So much of what we are as modern people indeed conflicts tremendously with what's mentioned and espoused in the Bible. We need to remember that the mores and attitudes of people during the time of Biblical events and the lives and times of the Bible's myriad writers is genuinely worlds away from where (nevermind when) we find ourselves now. I'll leave out the occasional self-conflict the Old Testament has with itself (slavery good or bad etc. though I will mention that there are plenty of references to polygamous individuals in the Old Testament, including Solomon, who AFAIK was never censured for having more than one wife, likewise with Moses).

Now, I view Paul with a dose of scepticism, not because I question his intent, but because he is a product of his time and he'd likely denounce many modern day Christians (even some conservative ones, I'd hazard) as heretic, but within his writings, you can find some universal truths. For example, Gal 3-28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

I interpret this as an inference that one is free to love whom one desires (wrt to hetero-/homosexuality). Further, we need to remember that the New Testament was originally written in archaic Greek, a greatly poetic language, and it was both written by and translated by men. When translated and interpreted with modern sensibilities, we find that there is a lot of hidden meaning in how the Greek phrases are composed that infer that an individual can love who they wish, and give their hearts to however many individuals they chose to, so long as they do so with all the sincerity that is expected of them.

However, I find it easiest to simply fall back upon the Two Commandments of Christ, specifically that which follows the Great Commandment. I'll quote the second, though I'm sure you're already aware:

Mark 12-31 And the second is like, namely this: that thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Matthew 22-39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

I'll follow this up with:

Mark 12-33 And to love [God] with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Matthew 22-40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Herein lies the core of Christian ethics to me. Loves come in all kinds, whether it is the bond of friendship, community, family or as lovers/companions and so long as you adhere to the course of loving others as you would yourself, romantic love shared, given and received freely and knowingly to more than one individual can not be rightly denied.

On a fictional note, I find it fun to quote a couple series: "Love as thou willt" (of course, there's more to it than that, but at its core, it's very applicable to so many situations); and, massive spoilers for anyone not yet at book 11 of David Weber's Honor Harrington series:

At All Costs - Chapter 30
"Your Grace," the Archbishop continued, turning to [her], "Mother Church has learned a great deal over the millennia. Many things about human beings and their spiritual needs never change and God, of course, is always constant. But the context in which those humans confront their spiritual needs DOES change. The rules evolved to handle these needs in a preindustrial pre-space civilisation simply cannot be applied to the galaxy in which we live today, any more than could the one-time religious ratification of slavery, or of the denial of the rights of women or the prohibition of women in the priesthood, or the marriage of priests.
"[They] chose to wed monogamously. The Church didn't require that of them, for we've learned that what truly matters is the love between partners, the union which makes it a true marriage, and not simply a convenience of the flesh. But that was their decision, and at the time, I believe it was the proper one for them. Certainly, anyone looking at them or speaking with them today, after all their marriage has endured, can still see the love and mutual commitment they share.
"But we live in an era of prolong, when men and women live literally for centuries. Just as Mother Church was eventually forced to deal with the tangled problems of genetic engineering and of cloning, she's been forced to acknowledge that when individuals live that long, the likelihood that even binding decisions must be revisited increases sharply.
"The Church doesn't look lightly upon the modification of wedding vows. Marriage is a solemn and a holy state, a sacrament ordained by God. But ours is a loving and an understanding God, and such a God wouldn't punish people to whom He's given the joyous gift of a love as deep as that which binds [you three] together by forcing you to remain apart."

Sure, it's a piece written in a sci-fi space opera novel, but damn, does it do a good job of surmising how I feel towards poly-ism (technology gaps notwithstanding, but no further from now as we are from the days when the New Testament was written).

Erm, yeah, this was a touch longer than I intended. -_-
 
Hi Stormy - again, welcome, and glad you decided to do an introductory post.

I am a Christian also, and worry how on earth I can reconcile this to my faith?

I wrote this article a while back on poly friendly churches- it may or may not prove helpful to you -

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=93095

This is from the first paragraph of that article and reflects my experience:
I was raised in an Evangelical-Fundamentalist church, and while I discarded most of that traditional theology early on, I did eventually find great meaning in the metaphysical esoteric understanding of New Thought Christianity (eventually coming to a personal belief structure that might best be characterized as Platonic-Christian Gnosticism), and a spiritual practice based on love, kindness, forgiveness - and with tolerance and open-mindedness obviously being implicit in that. From my perspective, that is, after all, the message that Jesus intended to offer to the world - even if the Church founded in his name all too often fails to demonstrate those values.

So, the question is - "what is a Christian?" - one who is baptized, or who has an emotional salvation experience and walks down the aisle to profess Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior (my experience growing up in the Evangelical Fundamentalism of the Southern USA), or perhaps one who abides by the Church's manufactured Nicene theology, along with all its rules and regulations regarding sexual and societal behavior? - Or - perhaps a Christian is one who is a disciple of Jesus and his teachings of love, forgiveness, and kindness - which really has nothing at all to do with sexual orientation, consensual sexual practices, relationship choices, etc - as long as the Christian practices those qualities of love and kindness. This is what being a Christian means to me (spiritually, I self identify as practicing "non-mythologized Platonic-Christian Gnosticism" from a metaphysical/theological perspective - but, yes, in that sense I do self identify as "Christian", and aspire to demonstrate love, forgiveness, and kindness in my life). Perhaps you could take a look at what being Christian means to you - regardless of what the Church says. The Church, after all, manufactured a religion about Jesus, with little regard for his actual message. So, just a couple of thoughts to consider. :) Al
 
Last edited:
Hi Stormy - again, welcome, and glad you decided to do an introductory post.



I wrote this article a while back on poly friendly churches- it may or may not prove helpful to you -

http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=93095

This is from the first paragraph of that article and reflects my experience:


So, the question is - "what is a Christian?" - one who is baptized, or who has an emotional salvation experience and walks down the aisle to profess Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior (my experience growing up in the Evangelical Fundamentalism of the Southern USA), or perhaps one who abides by the Church's manufactured Nicene theology, along with all its rules and regulations regarding sexual and societal behavior? - Or - perhaps a Christian is one who is a disciple of Jesus and his teachings of love, forgiveness, and kindness - which really has nothing at all to do with sexual orientation, consensual sexual practices, relationship choices, etc - as long as the Christian practices those qualities of love and kindness. This is what being a Christian means to me (spiritually, I self identify as practicing "non-mythologized Platonic-Christian Gnosticism" from a metaphysical/theological perspective - but, yes, in that sense I do self identify as "Christian", and aspire to demonstrate love, forgiveness, and kindness in my life). Perhaps you could take a look at what being Christian means to you - regardless of what the Church says. The Church, after all, manufactured a religion about Jesus, with little regard for his actual message. So, just a couple of thoughts to consider. :) Al

Al, thanks so much for your in depth information here. I am a theology student myself so itā€™s interesting to hear a different perspective. As far as I can see, polyamory was practiced in the Old Testament... am I right in thinking this? What would be your consensus on sexual orientation? Itā€™s interesting you linked your article here because before I posted, I had read it!

Thanks again!
 
As far as I can see, polyamory was practiced in the Old Testament... am I right in thinking this?

Polygamy (one husband, multiple wives) was practiced in the Old Testament. While polygamy can be technically thought of as a form of polyamory, polyamory as a philosophy embraces gender equality, so the Biblical polygamy would not really be the same as the ethical polyamory of today, since only the men got to have multiple partners. In an modern polyamorous marriage, both the husband and wife would be allowed to have other partners (of either sex), with details worked out through negotiation. But, in general terms, non-monogamy was certainly practiced in the Bible.

What would be your consensus on sexual orientation?

My personal belief, as a Gnostic Christian, would be that God would have no concern at all about our sexual orientation, sexual preferences, consensual sexual practices, or relationship choices - as long as we were kind and loving to one another.

From the Biblical perspective and a more traditional Christian perspective, however, there is a Biblical case to be made in support of same sex relationships. The pastor of the liberal mainstream church that my family attends conducted a very convincing seminar on this subject last year that I attended (our church being a major advocate for the LGBT community). I didn't save any notes, but I believe that much of his presentation was based on the book: God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships ā€“by Matthew Vines (available from Amazon and elsewhere) - which I believe is considered a landmark book on the subject of the Biblical defense of same sex relationships. That might might be a good starting point if you want to study the subject from a somewhat traditional Christian perspective. Hope this helps. Al
 
Last edited:
Greetings stormybrunette,
Welcome to our forum. Please feel free to lurk, browse, etc.

I am an atheist but as far as I am concerned, if there is (a) God/s, He/She/They/It has no problem with poly and if God doesn't mind poly, you shouldn't mind it either. I don't know if that helps you reconcile with your faith at all, but such is my perspective for what it's worth.

The Old Testament has men (including Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon) with multiple wives, but no women with multiple husbands. So it is a mixed bag.

As for where to find support groups in your area, here are some possibilities:

You may have to drive a little ... I'm thinking that London would have some groups for sure. I couldn't find any in Wales though, sorry.

Sincerely,
Kevin T., "official greeter" :)

Notes:

There's a *lot* of good info in Golden Nuggets. Have a look!

Please read through the guidelines if you haven't already.

Note: You needn't read every reply to your posts, especially if someone posts in a disagreeable way. Given the size and scope of the site it's hard not to run into the occasional disagreeable person. Please contact the mods if you do (or if you see any spam), and you can block the person if you want.

If you have any questions about the board itself, please private-message a mod and they'll do their best to help.

Welcome aboard!
 
I'll preface this, perhaps needlessly, by mentioning that I, too, am Christian, and haven't really had a problem resolving my faith with my sexuality (well, romantic outlook at least, I'm bi-romantic, heterosexual, but whatever, this is about you, now! ;) ).

The thing with resolving your polyamorous and bisexual nature with your faith is not especially difficult, in my opinion. So much of what we are as modern people indeed conflicts tremendously with what's mentioned and espoused in the Bible. We need to remember that the mores and attitudes of people during the time of Biblical events and the lives and times of the Bible's myriad writers is genuinely worlds away from where (nevermind when) we find ourselves now. I'll leave out the occasional self-conflict the Old Testament has with itself (slavery good or bad etc. though I will mention that there are plenty of references to polygamous individuals in the Old Testament, including Solomon, who AFAIK was never censured for having more than one wife, likewise with Moses).

Now, I view Paul with a dose of scepticism, not because I question his intent, but because he is a product of his time and he'd likely denounce many modern day Christians (even some conservative ones, I'd hazard) as heretic, but within his writings, you can find some universal truths. For example, Gal 3-28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

I interpret this as an inference that one is free to love whom one desires (wrt to hetero-/homosexuality). Further, we need to remember that the New Testament was originally written in archaic Greek, a greatly poetic language, and it was both written by and translated by men. When translated and interpreted with modern sensibilities, we find that there is a lot of hidden meaning in how the Greek phrases are composed that infer that an individual can love who they wish, and give their hearts to however many individuals they chose to, so long as they do so with all the sincerity that is expected of them.

However, I find it easiest to simply fall back upon the Two Commandments of Christ, specifically that which follows the Great Commandment. I'll quote the second, though I'm sure you're already aware:

Mark 12-31 And the second is like, namely this: that thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Matthew 22-39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

I'll follow this up with:

Mark 12-33 And to love [God] with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Matthew 22-40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Herein lies the core of Christian ethics to me. Loves come in all kinds, whether it is the bond of friendship, community, family or as lovers/companions and so long as you adhere to the course of loving others as you would yourself, romantic love shared, given and received freely and knowingly to more than one individual can not be rightly denied.

On a fictional note, I find it fun to quote a couple series: "Love as thou willt" (of course, there's more to it than that, but at its core, it's very applicable to so many situations); and, massive spoilers for anyone not yet at book 11 of David Weber's Honor Harrington series:

At All Costs - Chapter 30
"Your Grace," the Archbishop continued, turning to [her], "Mother Church has learned a great deal over the millennia. Many things about human beings and their spiritual needs never change and God, of course, is always constant. But the context in which those humans confront their spiritual needs DOES change. The rules evolved to handle these needs in a preindustrial pre-space civilisation simply cannot be applied to the galaxy in which we live today, any more than could the one-time religious ratification of slavery, or of the denial of the rights of women or the prohibition of women in the priesthood, or the marriage of priests.
"[They] chose to wed monogamously. The Church didn't require that of them, for we've learned that what truly matters is the love between partners, the union which makes it a true marriage, and not simply a convenience of the flesh. But that was their decision, and at the time, I believe it was the proper one for them. Certainly, anyone looking at them or speaking with them today, after all their marriage has endured, can still see the love and mutual commitment they share.
"But we live in an era of prolong, when men and women live literally for centuries. Just as Mother Church was eventually forced to deal with the tangled problems of genetic engineering and of cloning, she's been forced to acknowledge that when individuals live that long, the likelihood that even binding decisions must be revisited increases sharply.
"The Church doesn't look lightly upon the modification of wedding vows. Marriage is a solemn and a holy state, a sacrament ordained by God. But ours is a loving and an understanding God, and such a God wouldn't punish people to whom He's given the joyous gift of a love as deep as that which binds [you three] together by forcing you to remain apart."

Sure, it's a piece written in a sci-fi space opera novel, but damn, does it do a good job of surmising how I feel towards poly-ism (technology gaps notwithstanding, but no further from now as we are from the days when the New Testament was written).

Erm, yeah, this was a touch longer than I intended. -_-

Thank you so so much, you have explained it all so well. This has been incredibly helpful :D that piece from the sci-fi novel is beautiful and Iā€™m definitely going to read that a couple more times to ponder on what itā€™s saying. Please donā€™t apologise for the length of your post, you have no idea just how helpful itā€™s been :)

Polygamy (one husband, multiple wives) was practiced in the Old Testament. While polygamy can be technically thought of as a form of polyamory, polyamory as a philosophy embraces gender equality, so the Biblical polygamy would not really be the same as the ethical polyamory of today, since only the men got to have multiple partners. In an modern polyamorous marriage, both the husband and wife would be allowed to have other partners (of either sex), with details worked out through negotiation. But, in general terms, non-monogamy was certainly practiced in the Bible.



My personal belief, as a Gnostic Christian, would be that God would have no concern at all about our sexual orientation, sexual preferences, consensual sexual practices, or relationship choices - as long as we were kind and loving to one another.

From the Biblical perspective and a more traditional Christian perspective, however, there is a Biblical case to be made in support of same sex relationships. The pastor of the liberal mainstream church that my family attends conducted a very convincing seminar on this subject last year that I attended (our church being a major advocate for the LGBT community). I didn't save any notes, but I believe that much of his presentation was based on the book: God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships ā€“by Matthew Vines (available from Amazon and elsewhere) - which I believe is considered a landmark book on the subject of the Biblical defense of same sex relationships. That might might be a good starting point if you want to study the subject from a somewhat traditional Christian perspective. Hope this helps. Al

Thanks Al. Again, Iā€™m so grateful for all of your responses on this thread and the many different ways of looking at things. The book you suggested sounds a good read, I may well add it to my Amazon basket ;)

Greetings stormybrunette,
Welcome to our forum. Please feel free to lurk, browse, etc.

I am an atheist but as far as I am concerned, if there is (a) God/s, He/She/They/It has no problem with poly and if God doesn't mind poly, you shouldn't mind it either. I don't know if that helps you reconcile with your faith at all, but such is my perspective for what it's worth.

The Old Testament has men (including Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon) with multiple wives, but no women with multiple husbands. So it is a mixed bag.

Hello again! Thanks for your input also. Although a very simple way of looking at it, it could well be the key. Us humans always try and make something out of nothing, perhaps it really is as simple as what youā€™ve just written above :)
 
Thank you so so much, you have explained it all so well. This has been incredibly helpful :D that piece from the sci-fi novel is beautiful and Iā€™m definitely going to read that a couple more times to ponder on what itā€™s saying. Please donā€™t apologise for the length of your post, you have no idea just how helpful itā€™s been :)

You're welcome.

One way I tend to consider it is that the New Testament God is one of benevolence, tolerance and love, but also a strict God that punishes those who close themselves off to such (I hesitate to use the word owing to how distort its intent of use can become - like that indescribably ridiculous [insert a long stream of expletives] individual who blogged that men only like virtuous women, but that definition of virtuous was tattoo-free, virgin and submissively homemaker minded - but lack of a better one doesn't come to mind at the moment) virtues. Anyway, my point is that a great many so-called Christians these days are always so fixated upon what they CAN'T do rather than what they CAN do, and yet Christ very rarely said what you shouldn't do, instead saying what we ought to do, and in the main (primarily because I can't remember that much of it(!)) it accords with the Two Commandments, and he himself was a sociable individual who valued community highly. A couple of his notable miracles relate to the community setting.

Fundamentally, Christian polys (to the extent of my knowledge) tend to subscribe to the 'live and let live' line of thought and belief which is perfectly in line with the idea of loving one's neighbour. And referring back to that passage from At All Costs, there is nothing mentioned by Christ that says that a love of one's neighbour precludes a non-exclusive romantic love. AFAIK, with respect to marriage, I believe the extent of what he said was that he disapproved of divorce (with the implication that a marriage that leads to divorce was entered upon too lightly). And while he mentions the (by then) age old concept of marriage as man plus woman, two becoming one, the way his disapproval of divorce is worded neatly skirts around the possibility of polygamy. From how the passage reads, I get the feeling he was trying to be smart to get the Pharisees to shut up more than show off any knowledge of canon law (and Pharisees didn't exactly have a congenial relationship with early Christian communities for the most part). And given that literal interpretation of 'two bodies become one flesh' (or words to that effect) is just plain dumb, and the concept that spiritual union is greater than physical union, you have to ask: what is wrong with having a deep loving connection with more than one person? Even were physical and spiritual to have equivalence, 1 Corinthians 7:4 gives us the difference between polyamory and adultery: "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." While a couple subsequent verses indicate essentially (by modern sensibilities): enjoy the sex, but take it easy, 'cos you've got other responsibilities in life. Therefore, taking a lover with your partner's approval should invite no censure. Circuitously, my point is that ours is a God that protects those who love their fellow mankind, and the depth a romantic love can span is not grounds for condemnation just because it extends to more than one person.

Um. Yeah. TL:DR Something, something, God approves of love etc. :D
 
Re (from stormybrunette):
"Hello again! Thanks for your input also. Although a very simple way of looking at it, it could well be the key. Us humans always try and make something out of nothing, perhaps it really is as simple as what youā€™ve just written above :)"

Hi stormy, I'm glad to be of help (wherever I could). I actually come from a very religious background and have done a lot of study of the Scriptures in the past. But at the end of the day I've decided, that it's what we believe in our hearts that matters. And I can't imagine a God who clings to our prejudices and strictness the way we humans do. To me, God is a supremely enlightened Being, guided by the most basic characteristic of all good and virtuous relationships, which is mutual consent. If I (a mere mortal) can grasp the deep value of mutual consent, then surely God can grasp it. And as for the Scriptures, I put Truth first in priority and then decide which verses line up with the Truth. Rather than the other way around, where all the verses are assumed to determine what is true. First there was God, then there was the Bible. So I turn to God first, via prayer/inspiration (the Holy Spirit), and accept the Bible as true in those verses that line up with that inspiration. Hopefully that makes sense.
 
You're welcome.

One way I tend to consider it is that the New Testament God is one of benevolence, tolerance and love, but also a strict God that punishes those who close themselves off to such (I hesitate to use the word owing to how distort its intent of use can become - like that indescribably ridiculous [insert a long stream of expletives] individual who blogged that men only like virtuous women, but that definition of virtuous was tattoo-free, virgin and submissively homemaker minded - but lack of a better one doesn't come to mind at the moment) virtues. Anyway, my point is that a great many so-called Christians these days are always so fixated upon what they CAN'T do rather than what they CAN do, and yet Christ very rarely said what you shouldn't do, instead saying what we ought to do, and in the main (primarily because I can't remember that much of it(!)) it accords with the Two Commandments, and he himself was a sociable individual who valued community highly. A couple of his notable miracles relate to the community setting.

Fundamentally, Christian polys (to the extent of my knowledge) tend to subscribe to the 'live and let live' line of thought and belief which is perfectly in line with the idea of loving one's neighbour. And referring back to that passage from At All Costs, there is nothing mentioned by Christ that says that a love of one's neighbour precludes a non-exclusive romantic love. AFAIK, with respect to marriage, I believe the extent of what he said was that he disapproved of divorce (with the implication that a marriage that leads to divorce was entered upon too lightly). And while he mentions the (by then) age old concept of marriage as man plus woman, two becoming one, the way his disapproval of divorce is worded neatly skirts around the possibility of polygamy. From how the passage reads, I get the feeling he was trying to be smart to get the Pharisees to shut up more than show off any knowledge of canon law (and Pharisees didn't exactly have a congenial relationship with early Christian communities for the most part). And given that literal interpretation of 'two bodies become one flesh' (or words to that effect) is just plain dumb, and the concept that spiritual union is greater than physical union, you have to ask: what is wrong with having a deep loving connection with more than one person? Even were physical and spiritual to have equivalence, 1 Corinthians 7:4 gives us the difference between polyamory and adultery: "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." While a couple subsequent verses indicate essentially (by modern sensibilities): enjoy the sex, but take it easy, 'cos you've got other responsibilities in life. Therefore, taking a lover with your partner's approval should invite no censure. Circuitously, my point is that ours is a God that protects those who love their fellow mankind, and the depth a romantic love can span is not grounds for condemnation just because it extends to more than one person.

Um. Yeah. TL:DR Something, something, God approves of love etc. :D

Yet again, another beautiful insight. Thank you so much for sharing :) Iā€™ve certainly a lot to think about :confused:

Re (from stormybrunette):


Hi stormy, I'm glad to be of help (wherever I could). I actually come from a very religious background and have done a lot of study of the Scriptures in the past. But at the end of the day I've decided, that it's what we believe in our hearts that matters. And I can't imagine a God who clings to our prejudices and strictness the way we humans do. To me, God is a supremely enlightened Being, guided by the most basic characteristic of all good and virtuous relationships, which is mutual consent. If I (a mere mortal) can grasp the deep value of mutual consent, then surely God can grasp it. And as for the Scriptures, I put Truth first in priority and then decide which verses line up with the Truth. Rather than the other way around, where all the verses are assumed to determine what is true. First there was God, then there was the Bible. So I turn to God first, via prayer/inspiration (the Holy Spirit), and accept the Bible as true in those verses that line up with that inspiration. Hopefully that makes sense.

Yes that does make sense and is a way Iā€™ve never really thought about approaching scripture before. Thank you for your wisdom :)
 
Back
Top