Liberated Christian Polyamory

the Law outlines all the "rules" for having polygynous relationships. None of those were changed in the New Testament--in fact, the only admonitions against it are specifically given to church leaders, just as the Law specifically mandated that Levites not practice it.

I realize this is an old post but wanted to add:

1) In NT not to "Church leaders" but only to the elders of two Churches - Timothy and Titus. Some speculate it was because these were more Gentile Church's not use to the Hebrew way of many wives and concubines. Although this practice had somewhat died out by NT times, probably more a financial issue - wives are expensive - not any religious or moral issue.

2) Of course Christians are not under "the Law" In the sermon on the mount Jesus clearly changed some OT laws (after saying he came not to change but fulfill) he did change them to only the law of love.
 
I am a christian living in the Bible belt of Ky. up until about 6 months ago my life was very normal, than my wife came home with a girlfriend. I didn't know I could love two people but I have fallen in love with her and my wife loves her very much also. My question is: Spiritually are we out of the will of God, 6 months ago I would say yes, but I have been doing a study on the subject and God and Jesus says, we are far better off with one mate but does not say we can't have more than one . Any help out there. Duane

Hi Duane,

I think it might be useful to point out the fact that any religious organization (i.e. christianity etc) is first and foremost a political organization and only secondly a spiritual one. Many of the "rules & regulations" presented as such are private interpretations of particular humans with their own agenda to pursue. These rules etc have only been painted over with what appears to be a spiritual coating to make them easier to swallow and therefor further the existing agenda.

Trust your heart - it's has "higher" connections......

GS
 
Heh. That reminded me of a Simpson's quote:

Bart: Reverend Lovejoy, we need you to help us find a rabbi.
Rev.L: [flustered] Well, um, before you make any rash decisions, let me
just remind you that the church is changing to meet the needs
of today's young Christians!
-- Church Chat, ``Like Father, Like Clown''
 
Hi Duane,
I think it might be useful to point out the fact that any religious organization (i.e. christianity etc) is first and foremost a political organization and only secondly a spiritual one. Many of the "rules & regulations" presented as such are private interpretations of particular humans with their own agenda to pursue.

Grounded Spirit, when I first began to wrestle with reconciling the will of God with my interest in polyamory, the last thing I needed was someone disparaging my church ("first and foremost a political organization"; "their own agenda to pursue"). And there's a reason for that.

It's one thing to respectfully examine in depth the teachings of my church, find some of them lacking, and modify or abandon those teachings because of their inherent failures.

It's something else entirely to glibly abandon the teachings of my church because I found them inconvenient, because I wanted to do something the teachings prohibit.

When I first began this process, I HAD to wrestle with Scripture, with church teachings, and with my own soul. It was absolutely necessary for me that I understand polyamory within the context of my Christianity and the church teachings that I knew. I felt that anything less would be dishonest and hypocritical.

I don't know Duane. I don't know how far Duane has progressed in his examination process.

I do know that criticizing someone's church and/or religion is rarely productive. It can trigger defensiveness, a need to protect one's self, one's church, and one's connection with that church.

Far better to point out the emphasis Christianity places on truth, love, and authenticity. All of which are completely consistely with polyamory.
 
Last edited:
I think that when personal lifestyle choices, or needs, or preferences, or genetic imperatives conflict with the faith that you have taken on board (whether it be christianity, buddhism, taoism, paganism, agnosticism or atheism) it needs to be faced in some way. If not, then I think it becomes one of those things that can eat at the soul and the sense of self.

Some people can find a place in their religion for how they choose to, or feel compelled to live their lives, and some can not. Some feel that while they can still follow the teachings of that religion, they do not fit within their local congregation, and that, in and of itself, can be a huge challenge. I would suggest that resolving this latter issue is easier in larger cities, where there tends to be a wider variety of implementations of each faith, while still considered within the faith. I think that in smaller communities this often means keeping your faith, while not being able to participate in local congregations, which is a shame, because often they are a source of support and comfort to them.

So I guess I am suggesting that this issue is not a uniquely christian one.

I am certain that this becomes even more of an issue in countries with a less liberal attitude towards freedom of religious choice.

jasminegld, thank you for sharing this part of your story with us.
 
Hi Duane,

I think it might be useful to point out the fact that any religious organization (i.e. christianity etc) is first and foremost a political organization and only secondly a spiritual one. Many of the "rules & regulations" presented as such are private interpretations of particular humans with their own agenda to pursue. These rules etc have only been painted over with what appears to be a spiritual coating to make them easier to swallow and therefor further the existing agenda.

Trust your heart - it's has "higher" connections......

GS

I see your point. There is a broadness to your statement which does not seem directed at any one organization.

I think that it can apply to any organization or group, religious, community based or otherwise. Often enough it is true that though one outward appearance is presented, there is an agenda behind the scenes that is at cross-purposes with the facade shown to entice the public.

The best advice for those interested is to thoroughly investigate what these organizations have to offer them. Do your core values match those of the organization you wish to join, even the hidden agenda? If the answer is yes than there is no problem in joining. If no, do not join.

Either way you would be trusting your heart.

~Raven~
 
Last edited:
Caveat lector (I only wish Hannibal were involved...)

The best advice for those interested is to thoroughly investigate what these organizations have to offer them. Do your core values match those of the organization you wish to join, even the hidden agenda? If the answer is yes than there is no problem in joining. If no, do not join.

Either way you would be trusting your heart.

I took your advice with this Liberated Christian thing -- though I'm mostly a "hey, whatever's up there is up there, I dunno" sort of girl, I did like the notion that Christianity might accommodate polyamory.

I was almost sold on it, too, in the sense that yes, it made enough sense that I'd be willing to endorse it. So what made me change my mind?

The site has a very problematic section on adult/child sexuality; at one point, it is testified that a thirteen-year-old enjoyed his abuse.

DO NOT WANT. Thus, cannot endorse. Will happily look for the theology elsewhere, but for personal reasons, am unable to share that person's values on severely underage sex with adults.
 
I took your advice with this Liberated Christian thing -- though I'm mostly a "hey, whatever's up there is up there, I dunno" sort of girl, I did like the notion that Christianity might accommodate polyamory.

I was almost sold on it, too, in the sense that yes, it made enough sense that I'd be willing to endorse it. So what made me change my mind?

The site has a very problematic section on adult/child sexuality; at one point, it is testified that a thirteen-year-old enjoyed his abuse.

DO NOT WANT. Thus, cannot endorse. Will happily look for the theology elsewhere, but for personal reasons, am unable to share that person's values on severely underage sex with adults.

It is definitely advice to be used across a broad scope. Religion is one aspect. I find it rather helpful when dealing with alternative communities as well. As I said in another thread, being any one identity doesn't guarantee a progressive attitude, something I find preferable. It is usually needed for social change to occur.

There is a great deal of prejudice and moral relativity hidden under the guise of openness and forward thinking. An agenda to replicate normative social structures which benefit some and negatively affect others. All within the same alternative community such as the polyamorous one. I've managed to steer clear though not without some mistakes. That's a deceptive crowd and the agenda is not always easy to spot beneath the "spiritual coating" as GroundedSpirit put it.

~Raven~
 
Last edited:
Grounded Spirit, when I first began to wrestle with reconciling the will of God with my interest in polyamory, the last thing I needed was someone disparaging my church ("first and foremost a political organization"; "their own agenda to pursue"). And there's a reason for that.

Hi Jasmine,

Well, I'm sorry if that hit a tender spot with you. All I can offer - and this is something I constantly remind myself of and try to stay connected to - is this.
Whenever I find myself in/leaning towards a defensive posture over anything short of a physical threat, I immediately try to identify what belief it is I hold that seems threatened and try to analyze what it would mean if that belief turned out to be a false - or maybe incomplete - one. (we have lots of them) This way I find I learn more and the communication becomes clearer with the assumed threaten-er.
I would chose not to debate any of your beliefs with you but acknowledge that you have the freedom to believe as you feel best as long as it harms none.
That's really all I have to offer.

GS
 
The site has a very problematic section on adult/child sexuality; at one point, it is testified that a thirteen-year-old enjoyed his abuse.

This has always been a really difficult topic for us in general. Having raised 5 children ourselves, the necessity of being on guard for predators or others of bad intent was a prevailing reality.
But we also acknowledge the other side of reality - because we've been there too. We know when "we" became aware of our own sexuality (and yes it was prior to age 13 !) and began experimenting with it. We also know numerous others personally and have had these in-depth conversations on the topic.
I haven't read the article you speak of but have read hundreds of others - or books etc - dealing with the topic and can only say that we've come to the conclusion there's considerable damage currently being done to innocent people by the "moralists" in positions of power & influence and if allowed to go unchecked it will simply add to the distorted views too many people have about our natural sexuality in general.
It's not a small problem.
There's currently hundreds (maybe thousands?) of young men & women that have been charged with "crimes" based on an arbitrary age limit for sexual exploration and will now be faced with being labeled "predators" - dangers to society for the rest of their lives !
In a maybe slightly more extreme example I recall reading about not long ago, a young woman of 16 who was involved in a little orgy that included others of a variety of ages (up to mid 40s). Somehow the cat got out of the bag as it often does and her parents got wind of it and filed charges against all involved.
When it came court time the young lady stormed into the courtroom and declared to all that there was no coercion of ANY manner involved - that if anything it was largely HER idea and how can you DARE prosecute these friends !
Never-the-less, the prosecution did proceed and the supposed perpetrators convicted, sentenced and labeled.
This was especially poignant for us as we had certainly both been involved in very similar activities at similar ages and have nothing but fond memories. We also know numerous others who will testify to the same.
So unfortunately, at least to us, this like so many other things is one of those grey areas that needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. Blind morality leads to blind justice.

GS
 
Hi Jasmine,
Well, I'm sorry if that hit a tender spot with you.

I was concerned about Duane, and still am. I haven't seen Duane post again. Duane asked about polyamory being "out of the will of God." Your reply was about the validity of religious organizations. I am concerned about Duane's reaction, based on what I remember of my own experience.

Whenever I find myself in/leaning towards a defensive posture over anything short of a physical threat, I immediately try to identify what belief it is I hold that seems threatened and try to analyze what it would mean if that belief turned out to be a false - or maybe incomplete - one.

It takes practice to get to that place, and very few of us can start there right off the bat. The more conservative the starting place, the more difficult it is allow one's beliefs to be challenged. We have to take them in small steps, one carefully chosen bit at a time, as we are ready for them. Duane had already chosen the area he wanted to work on -- the will of God. It's not up to us to challenge him with other areas that he hasn't indicated he is ready for.
 


I see your point. There is a broadness to your statement which does not seem directed at any one organization.



Hi Raven,

Well yes, a statement like that (as you mentioned) has to be broad because it's so fundamental to humans and especially "groups" of them.
This I think kind of takes you down a path of understanding the difference between "spirituality" and "religion".
There's something in all of us that "knows" we're all connected, all part of something bigger than us. Sensing this, we reach out to try to find, to understand,what that all is. It's in our nature. We need to understand our world around us. The disadvantages of a big brain.
Although at the root of all the worlds great "religions" there are some simple, basic truths espoused by some enlightened individuals that attempt to lead people to discover that connectedness, those simple truths are often twisted by the too-big brains attached to beings with an equal desire for power & control. And that's when things go awry and "religions" surface under the guise of "bringing people together for better understanding". It seems that the true "understanding" necessary is a very personal and individual thing that can only come through states of high awareness and much exposure to all the variations that such simple truths can allude to.
Love and compassion seem to fall into that category :)

GS
 
Wow, I am so glad for this link.

That's an awesome website with lots of good ideas about things I haven't even considered before. I come from a Christian background so it's very interesting to see where I was mis-taught the Bible, etc.
(I no longer identify as Christian though.)
 
Thanks for the link.
Though I'm atheist and dont find credibilty at all in the bible, for me it is myth and legend, - I am going to send this link to my conservative other, in the hope that something will resonate with her. :cool::cool:
 
Love

What’s always interesting to me is that it would appear that of all the things Jesus told us to truly fear it was sex.

Jesus was never asked a direct question about sex outside of marriage.

He was asked a direct question about divorce. It was a trick question to see if Jesus would contradict Hebrew traditions and customs.

His response to the question about divorce was that it was permissible only in a case of sexual immorality.

In later translations of the words of Christ the word immoral is replaced with the word fornication. This is an important distinction but it doesn’t change the impact of what Jesus said.

Sexual immorality is socially unacceptable sexual behavior. Fornication is sex between two unmarried people.

The translators who wrote the King James version of Christ’s words using the word fornication wanted to make it clear that to them sex outside of marriage was unacceptable in 1607 English society.

There is no doubt that in the present day evangelical church it is immoral or socially unacceptable for two people who aren’t married to have sex.

There is also no doubt that many people who believe Jesus is God and try to obey His commandments are not a part of the evangelical church.

Are there universally accepted standards of sexual immorality that have never changed by individuals who obey Christ’s command that we love each other as much as we love ourselves?

My list looks like this.
• Rape
• Deceit
• Betrayal
• Abandonment

In fact Jesus said our greatest enemy is materialism.

Treating each other as possessions is materialism at its worst.

From my experience, a question every couple whoever they are deals with on a regular basis.
 
Last edited:
Cross topics, Polyamory vs. Polygamy

I came here to read about some Christian views on polyamory and found a lot of people using the term polygamy in this thread. It's a pet peeve of mine when people do this. They are two different words with two different meanings. Maybe they are simple spellchecker errors in this thread, however, I hadn't seen a moderator point this out and thought I would. I have nothing against either poligamists or polyamorist, I just think it's confusing for those who are new to either concept if the terms are intermingled. Now, I am A Christian who believes that God speaks to me through the Holy Ghost that rose up with me when I laid down my sinful body in baptism. I belief that this spirit creates a God consciousness within me that helps me to interpret Gods word both written and spoken. I believe that if God gave me a heart that is capable of abundant love for multiple people then I should let that love flow. Many non-believers study scripture much deeper than many of the hypocritical "blind" believers, and they base their non-belief on the blatant contridictions they find in both scripture and interpretations of scripture. Christians themselves have hundreds of sects and denominations based on their inability to agree on specific details. I say, believe and trust God with your heart and mind, seek truth through text and spoken word. But, let the Holy spirit reveal those truths for you in your heart and then share your experience without judgementally trying to make others conform to your truth, let them find their own, through their loving and trusting relationship with God.
 
Polygamy, while illegal in just about any jurisdiction you care to name, is not—in its literal definition—incompatible with Polyamory. In any case, I did a word search and don't see how one instance of the word "polygamist" and three of "polygamy" (including the two in your post) constitutes "a lot of people using the term".
 
Although my statement implied many, which was a bit over zealous on my part, the actual required number of persons constituting the use of the term "lot" or " a lot" would be two or more. However, I believe that it only requires one use of the term poligamy or poligamist in a thread about polyamory, to be sufficient to point out that there is a difference. I'm not judging just pointing out something that could mislead others who are less informed.
 
Back
Top