Polyamory and Christianity

...what does 'thanks for the bacon' mean? .

Jumping in to say, Paul declared all foods clean, whereas for centuries before, "Jews" had been avoiding eating pork because of what was said in the Torah (Leviticus).

New Christian thought was, it was more important what came out of your mouth than what went in. However, Jewish Christians were still commanded to avoid eating meats that Gentiles had offered to a Greek deity before cooking and eating it.
 
Have any of you read Divine Sex: Liberating Sex From Religious Tradition by Philo Thelos?

I ask, because I'm reading it right now. It's not at all what i thought it would be based on the title. The writer was a pastor in a christian church for 36 years.
His purpose in the book is to show what the Bible itself actually teaches regarding sex, instead of what the church has decided is correct.
I'm only half way through teh book and let me tell you what, it's VERY interesting.

The section I'm in right now is about "adultery" and what the term in Hebrew meant (which is not sex with partners other than your spouse, something I already knew). It's VERY VERY intriguing as it basically comes out that the Bible doesn't teach anything against multiple lovers when you are married, or multiple marriages for that matter.

It might be something you would find interesting to read if this is a topic you are trying to reconcile for yourselves also. I know it's been eye-opening for me and not in a bad way.
Nowhere does the author in any way twist the words that are written, in fact he seems to be dead set in his faith in Jesus as the savior and in his confidence in the Bible being the perfect word of God. He quotes the Bible fully-not partially, so no manipulation of pieces and parts for convenience.

Well worth the read. He also gives a LOT of information in the back on where to get additional information about studying the Bible, the languages and the history. :)
 
Have any of you read Divine Sex: Liberating Sex From Religious Tradition by Philo Thelos?

I ask, because I'm reading it right now. It's not at all what i thought it would be based on the title. The writer was a pastor in a christian church for 36 years.
His purpose in the book is to show what the Bible itself actually teaches regarding sex, instead of what the church has decided is correct.
I'm only half way through teh book and let me tell you what, it's VERY interesting.

I've read it LR, a couple of years ago when I was first researching the concept of polyamory. I found it to be extremely interesting and eye-opening, particularly the examination of the discrepancies between Scripture actually says and church traditions that have grown up around Mankind's interpretations of those Scriptures. It revolutionized the way I think about a lot of things.

If you want someone to discuss it with, I'd be glad to re-read it so we could be book buddies. PM me if you're interested.
 
...And a believer has to decide about having faith in the Bible. ... We're dealing with an ancient culture, having as much to do with life today as a culture from Mars might.

I'm not interested in changing people's minds about their religion on this message board. I'm interested in how their religious beliefs affect the way they deal with polyamory.

If someone else believes that the Bible is sacred Scripture that speaks truth to them, then that person might need to reconcile the Bible with polyamory. I've had experience doing this. I'm interested in talking Bible and polyamory with this person. Or some other aspect of their religion. I'm interested in conversations that might lead to answers WITHIN their religion, not simply tossing it aside for expedience.

If someone believes the Bible is irrelevant, then that person doesn't need to reconcile the Bible with polyamory. And that's fine. But it's not okay to tell someone else to toss aside their religion. It might stop them from talking about things they really want to talk about. It might make them feel unwelcome on this message board.

Just as I object to a monogamous-minded person telling me that polyamory is all impossible fantasy that can never ever work and I must return to monogamy, I also object to a secular-minded person telling me that my religion or Bible is irredeemable flawed and I must cast it off.

If we polys want people to be tolerant of us, we need to be tolerant of each other.
 
"If we polys want people to be tolerant of us, we need to be tolerant of each other.[/QUOTE]

Well said...
 
jasmine,
have you read the book I mentinoed?
I just finished it.

Having been raised Christian and still very much believing many of the precepts, but not choosing to associate myself with any one sect I found the book very helpful on a faith level.

I thought it was exemplary that this pastor decided to show how the Bible actually doesn't speak out against non-monogamy. Very daring and very awesome!
 
Catbird:
Nice to meet you too! As Magdlyn pointed out, Paul essentially made the greatest of all foods accessible to Christians. He also tends to give me the greatest conflicts in reading the Bible.

Jasminegld:
When we talk with conservative Christian family and friends, it doesn't do any good to criticize Paul's credentials or any other part of the Bible. It's more effective to understand the religious concerns of the person we're talking with and speak to those concerns in religious language.

I usually try not to do ad hominem, seriously. :p . I meant it from the "already questioning" perspective and context criticism. You're absolutely right about not attacking a person's religion just to make your point. I wouldn't do that to someone unfamiliar with poly, but from a frustrated Christian point of view, it's easy (for me at least) to slip and discredit parts that don't feel right..


LR:
I haven't started Divine Sex yet, LR. I just finished The Ethical Slut, and DS is next. Since we just found this community in January, we ordered a few of the recommended books and are taking them in turn.

Since you've finished it, in retrospect are there any parts you (or anyone else, for that matter) recommend paying particular attention to, or re-reading in DS? I'm going to start it this weekend.
 
Last edited:
I just started Divine Sex and haven't gotten past the first chapter yet (too many distractions), but am really impressed so far. It started me on a whole other set of issues I'm dealing with within my family and their religous snobbery :rolleyes:. He lists alot of Bible verses, but only a pharaphrased version is in the book, I find it helpful to be able to look up some of the verses in the Bible I have normally use and then look up different translations online, as I go along.
 
I highly suggest reading the foreward and intro. They really do put the whole thing in perspective (generally I advise skipping these, but this book, no way).

As for the rest, my biggest suggestion would be to take each section slowly enough that you can contemplate it before moving on to the next chapter. Its well worth taking the time to consider the information.

I haven't read the Ethical Slut. I tried, and got so bored in under 3 pages, I dropped it.

However, I have read quite a few different books in the last year pertaining to poly, as well as a number of blogs. They are listed in my blog on their own separate page, if you are looking for ideas after those two books. :)

Also, check out UUPA. I haven't rummaged through the whole site, but it's a group of poly's from the UU church. You may find interesting stuff there as well. (Did I write that already? If so I apologize!)
 
I haven't read the Ethical Slut. I tried, and got so bored in under 3 pages, I dropped it.

:rolleyes: No kidding... ES takes a little bit to get going. I had your reaction after the first chapter, but it picked up. It's basically an exhaustive introduction to the lifestyle full of practical advice and personal accounts. I found it very useful in some parts and not all that helpful in others. However, they reiterate things a lot, so you really can pick a chapter at random and just read what interests you. There is no real flow, and the chapters are not dependent upon each other. It strikes me as a collection of short papers written on the subject, assembled and edited into a book, (it might even be that). You can skip the intro and conclusion, but the end of the book is chock full of references and further reading. Overall opinion: Useful enough to be a keeper (at least to poly-n00bs like us).

I checked out UUPA. There weren't any Colorado churches, so that was kind of a downer, but as far as my search goes, I'm really just looking for an open, loving Christian church, doesn't have to be poly. Also, I'm in no big hurry to go either. It's cool that they're out there.
 
...........
Just as I object to a monogamous-minded person telling me that polyamory is all impossible fantasy that can never ever work and I must return to monogamy, I also object to a secular-minded person telling me that my religion or Bible is irredeemable flawed and I must cast it off.

Hey Jasmine,

I'm completely on this page with you. Tolerance and respect are seriously missing elements today it seems.

The only time I step outside this policy is when someone may choose to carry their convoluted belief systems into positions of power and influence. Areas that can have real impact on my life or those I love and care about.
It's then that I will step up and call them to the carpet on their dangerous beliefs and how those beliefs belong to THEM - privately - as individuals. Believe (and do) what you want behind your own closed doors. Beliefs and actions that affect no one but yourself.
This of course is hard or almost impossible to do - especially in the realm of religion & spirituality.
And therein lies (and always has) the danger of religion - period.
It's like weapons. Keep it so it can't extend beyond your own property boundaries and the only ones in danger are those who invade your space. Allow it to grow beyond that and the entire species (and more) can be endangered.

GS
 
jasmine,
have you read the book I mentinoed?
I just finished it.

No, I haven't read Divine Sex. I own three or four similar books, and I've read parts of them. I did my heavy duty soul-searching 20 years ago when only one of these books had been published, and I didn't know about it or any others that might be out there. So I had to figure it all out by myself. Well, almost. I did find one lonely article by a minister, the author of the one book that was on the shelves, the book that I didn't find.

At this point, reading these books is mildly interesting, but no longer compelling. It's like preaching to the choir. I keep them for references.

Having been raised Christian and still very much believing many of the precepts, but not choosing to associate myself with any one sect I found the book very helpful on a faith level.

I can imagine! I wish I had had one of these books twenty years ago. My soul searching would have been a heck of a lot easier.

I thought it was exemplary that this pastor decided to show how the Bible actually doesn't speak out against non-monogamy. Very daring and very awesome!

Indeed. And yet, so many Christians still insist that the Bible DOES prohibit non-monogamy. It's as though we're reading completely different texts. It astonishes me.
 
It is aggravating that so many Christian churches don't seem to read the book that they preach out of. That's one of the complaints of this author, anyone "preaching" from the Bible that hasn't bothered to study it with the historical contexts included. :)

I can only imagine trying to dredge through all of it 20 years ago-course I would have been in grade school, but still!!

With each year the world gets a little more aware in differing areas, but if you catch something right amidst the total "anti" attitudes of it... WHEW that could be a living hell!!!
 
I feel pretty uncomfortable commenting on this thread because I'm definitely not a Christian in the generally-accepted sense of the word.
I was brought up in a right-wing conservative-Christian, MISSIONARY family and have come to see the way that the Church has colluded in injustice, hypocrisy, and oppression all over the World.

I have a great deal of respect for Jesus and his teachings, but I sincerely believe them to have been bent completely out of wack - often being interpreted as the exact opposite of what (I feel) Jesus was trying to say.

I reject any notion that the Bible is God's Word without any room for human error. I reject any notion that God is so petty that he gives preference to people who have been born into Judeo-Christian culture over those born into a Buddhist, Hindu, Pantheistic, Druid, or Muslim culture.

I reject any notion of a God who allowed Satan to devastate one of God's faithful (Job), killing his wife, his children, his servants, covering him with boils... just so God could win a bet with Satan that Job would remain faithful through it all. If that's your God, you can keep him! I don't want him. He's a nasty piece of filth!
I reject any notion that God considered gathering firewood on the Sabbath a crime so terrible that the culprit deserved to be stoned to death.

I believe that Jesus (who spent his early youth in Egypt, coming in contact with non-Jewish faith systems [there were even Buddhist monks in Egypt at that time... and The Golden Rule is a paraphrasing of Buddhist teachings that predate Jesus' citing of it by millenia]) was grossly misunderstood by his own disciples. I'm not going to Google chapter and verse for you, but at one point he gets really brassed off with them and exclaims (frustrated?) "Have I been among you so long and still you don't understand???" Is it surprising that they should have bungled writing it all down (in some cases, decades later)? And I have seen enough blunders in translations to know the scope for further mangling here.

But let's come now to the greatest perverter ever of Jesus' teachings, "Saint" Paul. This is a man who (before his "conversion") spent his free time persecuting Christians.
Well, at risk of sounding blasphemous, Paul was a little crazy, with a religous fever not even Peter could match. I don't think he gets a pass just for being a church leader, but he was probably the world's first overzealous convert. Remember, most of the others converted with little guilt, but Paul had a lot of baggage to atone for, (at least in his mind) for persecuting Christians before his conversion experience. His faith may have changed, but the personality didn't, it would seem. Also, I'm wary of anyone that didn't learn firsthand from Jesus Himself and claims having had a vision or heard a disembodied voice. Not saying it wasn't genuine... just take Paul with a huge grain of salt.

My attitude towards Paul is "Thanks for the bacon but dude, lay off the gays".:rolleyes:
Personally, I do believe that his "conversion" wasn't genuine. I honestly believe that Saul / Paul thought: "Well, if you can't beat 'em [from the outside], join 'em [and corrupt the whole movement from within]."

Again, I'm not going to Google chapter and verse for you, but this man had the arrogance to say (I'm paraphrasing here, of course): "If anyone else tells you what to believe, do not credit them, but if I tell you something, you should give it as much credence as if it came from Christ himself."

I can't imagine Jesus as being as down on women as Paul. "If a woman has a question in church, she should be silent and wait until she reaches home, to ask her husband and let HIM interpret it for her."

Paul was a world-class hypocrite "I, the least and most unworthy of God's servants..." while setting himself up to be the ultimate authority on any point of doctrine!!!

And yes, brainfreezy: I believe that Jesus wouldn't have been down on homosexuals as Paul (widely suspected of being a closet homosexual himself) was.

It was Jesus who said: "Let him who is without sin throw the first stone."
It was Paul who threw a spanner into the works of the early church... and it has never recovered.

My GOD, how Paul would have hated polyamory!!!
 
To cut Paul just a little slack, half the books attributed to him in the canon were not written by him; including the part about how bishops (not all men) should have only one wife.

He was down on gays because the Greeks were way into homosexuality and the Jews weren't. The Jews also liked to cut off half the penises of baby boys, while the Greeks preferred a long foreskin; even when erect it was depicted as ideally covering the glans.
 
...but at one point he gets really brassed off with them and exclaims (frustrated?) "Have I been among you so long and still you don't understand???"

What then would Jesus teach polyamorists today? What do we understand of Jesus's teachings? What is it that we still don't understand?

Jasmine
 
What then would Jesus teach polyamorists today? What do we understand of Jesus's teachings? What is it that we still don't understand?

Jasmine

Treat everyone with love and understanding.


I don't know who said it-it's not a biblical reference, but I really like the statement, "You're only as big as the smallest thing you allow to offend you"

:)
 
What then would Jesus teach polyamorists today? What do we understand of Jesus's teachings? What is it that we still don't understand?

Jasmine
I've been away from Internet for almost a week since I wrote my first comment here. In the meantime I've calmed down a bit and feel a need to apologise to anybody who was offended by my outburst. There are a few things you maybe need to know to understand it.

1) I grew up in a right-wing conservative-"Christian" missionary family and had it drummed into me that I was (we all are) worthless - scum actually - and that only an infinitely loving God could find it in his heart to love such scum... or grant the grace to others to love me as well (but far from perfectly). When I finally worked my way out of this / recovered from this, I had - and have - a great distaste for what is usually understood as "Christianity" and "Christian Morals". (My siblings consider that I am unsuitable to care for my Alzheimers-affected mother simply because I am not "Christian". They prefer to give responsibility for her overnight care to a brother of mine who's deaf, SLOOOOOOOOOOW to react, and frankly not very bright. If she fell out of bed and cried for help, he would probably not notice. In the meantime, another brother has bullied her with the "Scriptures": that - as a widow - she must kowtow to ["accept the God-ordained authority of"] her sons.)

2) I have perhaps no problem with any of Jesus' teaching (as I interpret them), but am ANGRY at a church that has corrupted a message of Love, acceptance, forgiveness, self-awareness, and self-respect into one of petty (or grand) scorn, rejection, Judge-Mentalness, self-delusion, and self-loathing. (I don't call myself a Christian because I reject the idea of his being the unique Son of God / the only way to "salvation".)

3) In my opinion, almost the first and certainly the weightiest corruptor of this message was Paul. According to Magdlyn, "half the books attributed to [Paul] in the canon were not written by him". I have a friend who argues that there is absolutely no historical evidence for Jesus ever existing. Both statements / opinions are beside the point. Whether written by a single man, a committee, or several unrelated people, the works attributed to Paul scuppered Jesus' teachings... and are perhaps given more weight by many conservative churches today than the gospels - precisely because they back up their right-wing hard-hearted philosophy.

En fin, if you can reconcile Jesus' teachings with polyamory, I think you're on the right track... or one of them.:p I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear last time.

Does that answer your [main] question, Jasmine?

(Ironically enough, for all his faults, Paul wrote perhaps the simplest summing up of what I might consider to be my religion: "God is Love.")
 
Does that answer your [main] question, Jasmine?

No. Your answer is about your anger and objections. My question asked what Jesus teaches polyamorists, and what we still don't understand.

So now I have a different question for MrFarFromRight. Do these issues of Jesus and Christianity still matter to you today?

2) En fin, if you can reconcile Jesus' teachings with polyamory, I think you're on the right track...

Yes, I can.

Jasmine
 
3) In my opinion, almost the first and certainly the weightiest corruptor of this message was Paul. According to Magdlyn, "half the books attributed to [Paul] in the canon were not written by him".

don't take my word for it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

I have a friend who argues that there is absolutely no historical evidence for Jesus ever existing. Both statements / opinions are beside the point. Whether written by a single man, a committee, or several unrelated people, the works attributed to Paul scuppered Jesus' teachings...

Yes, the Deutero-Pauline epistles were written later, after Paul's dream (and Jesus' idea) that the end of the eon was at hand had died. The first idea was, leave your family and get ready for God's unearthly kingdom. The new idea was, we're in this for a long haul, how do we proceed with this earthly life?

The later writings were more practical and focused on church hierarchy and leadership.

and are perhaps given more weight by many conservative churches today than the gospels - precisely because they back up their right-wing hard-hearted philosophy.

And that would be the patriarchal mindset, where women are 2nd class citizens and gay men are seen as weak and evil.

But Christians still have the benefit of bacon, so it's not all bad! :p
 
Back
Top