Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Spirituality & Polyamory

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-28-2017, 05:59 AM
ElMango ElMango is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 46
Default

As a person who practices Norse paganism, in what accurate information I've found over the years is that it supports both mono and poly relationships.

I mean, Loki turned himself in a mare and had a baby.
__________________
Z- Husband as of Sept. 2016, spouse as of 2008
B- Boyfriend as of April 2017, in a sexual relationship and friendship as of Jan. 2017
M- my meta and my husband's girlfriend as of May 2017
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-02-2017, 06:58 PM
Al99's Avatar
Al99 Al99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,647
Default

Tinwen wrote:
Quote:
Well, it's a little harder to be a good Christian and have multiple sexual partners ... not impossible tho, if you don't take on all the attached dogma.
Yes, the attached dogma is the issue. Which leads to the question of how one defines a Christian - baptized member of a church? - one who accepts the Nicene-based theology of mainline Christianity (protestant or Catholic)? - one who has the emotional experience of "being saved"? Or one who is a disciple of Jesus' teachings of love and forgiveness (as opposed to the Pauline theology that was manufactured to deify him)?

Ok - so I do consider myself a Christian in the spirit of the last definition - with a personal theology that is somewhat of a de-mythologized Platonic-Gnosticism - but that's just me. There are as many paths as there are individuals (imho). It does seem to me that what is important - if one is to identify as a Christian - is that one aspires to kindness, love, and forgiveness. Also seems to me that has little to do with one's choice of sexual expression - be it poly, mono, hetero, gay, pan,.... etc... - other than seeking to be kind and loving in whatever expression is chosen.

Many folks I have met who identify as atheistic are more truly agnostic in that they cannot outright deny the possibility of some sort of Higher Power - be it First Cause or Prime Thought or Spirit of Love, etc.... They just cannot accept the rigid dogma and preposterous theological notions that organized religions of all sorts propose. Al
__________________
Dramatis Personae:
Me: Al99, poly, heterosexual male, 50's
Becky: married to Al99, poly, heterosexual female, late 30's
Bouncingbetty: ldr girlfriend to Al99, poly, pansexual female, early 30's
Ben: Becky's medium-ldr bf, heterosexual male, 40's
_________________________________________


My Introductory Post - An Unexpected Introduction to Poly.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-02-2017, 10:18 PM
Spork's Avatar
Spork Spork is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 2,532
Default

I suppose that I am more truly agnostic, but...I actually do believe in a "higher power" it's just that I reject the urge to define or anthropomorphize said force. I call it only The Purpose, or my God Concept. It's just this basic thought that there's an awful lot of interesting stuff going on in nature, that seems to make an awful lot of sense and the odds of everything coming together ~JUST SO~ for life on our planet, let alone any individual specific one of us, to exist...

This idea of mine, it does not require worship or deification. It's neither good nor evil. It's more like a sort of awe at nature and science and everything. I don't care what happens when I die. I'm sure I will, and then I'll find out...or not. I am not interested in fables and parables to lay down the laws of civilized behavior, it's pretty easy for me to see, without any holy book explaining it, what is the path that leads to greater social harmony and what is not.

After all. Evil acts are only acts that make one unsafe to be part of civil society. Acts that violate others. And they repel us, most of us, at a deep inner level that has nothing to do with our religious upbringing and everything to do with our culture and socialization, though these things can for some people be one and the same. It is interesting, as a nonreligious parent, raising my sons and trying to teach them to be civil. That it is wrong to violate others in the pursuit of your own gratification, is probably the biggest most difficult lesson. Stealing for instance. Or that dishonesty is harmful to the self. If my son lies to me about his schoolwork, he is not harming me. He is harming himself. He just isn't wise enough to see it.

I suppose it's got to be so much easier to raise them with "God says so."

But I cannot bring myself to be so intellectually lazy, nor to encourage it in my kids. I think maybe that's my beef with religion. It's the institution of it, the way you accept authority in order to not have to think about the whys and wherefores of decent human behavior, the need to have dire consequences just to keep a person on a good path. And there are too many rules in most organized religions that don't fit with my idea of good, needful social behavior rules...many of them having to do with patriarchal absolutes and what people do with their genitals.

I just cannot for the life of me believe, that the same mighty force that keeps the planets in orbit, and cells dividing, and the stars alight, and the reactions of chemicals to one another functioning in predictable ways, and a million other things that just ARE...is going to scowl and frown and want to punish a person for touching themselves, or for loving a person with the same plumbing, or for loving multiple partners, or anything like that. The same force that made cats to play with their prey probably doesn't even care of we blow up the planet here. If we did...the particles would still follow the laws of physics, which we did not write.

So I find religion to be at the same time...pretentious and rather insulting.
__________________
Spork 39 F
Zen Sadist late 50's, M - Sadomasochistic Top, Lover, Nesting Partner. My all around wonderful Man Person.

Analyst, Fire & Hefe My poly quad from August 2015 to July 2016. Still dear & loved friends.

Blood:
Ninja- 19, Son
Q- 17, Son

Old Wolf- Ex Husband
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-03-2017, 04:48 PM
Magdlyn's Avatar
Magdlyn Magdlyn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Metro West Massachusetts
Posts: 6,791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99 View Post

Yes, the attached dogma is the issue. Which leads to the question of how one defines a Christian - baptized member of a church? - one who accepts the Nicene-based theology of mainline Christianity (protestant or Catholic)? - one who has the emotional experience of "being saved"? Or one who is a disciple of Jesus' teachings of love and forgiveness (as opposed to the Pauline theology that was manufactured to deify him)?
Actually the (real) letters of Paul were written before the earliest gospel (Mark). The gospels were written to expand the Christ idea into fun myths... not the other way around. Half the writings attributed to Paul, though, plus the later short gospels, were written after the 4 main (synoptic) gospels, which all grew out of Mark and a couple other oral or written sources. The pseudo-Paulines were written late in the first century or early 2nd, when it was obvious Jesus was not coming back any time soon, and the church needed rules around what the f to do now?

This is basic Biblical historical critical consensus thought.

Quote:
Ok - so I do consider myself a Christian in the spirit of the last definition - with a personal theology that is somewhat of a de-mythologized Platonic-Gnosticism - but that's just me.
I consider myself gnostic with some pagan leanings. Gnosticism isn't limited to Christianity, it was a common belief system in Greek, Jewish and Eastern theology of the time. Gnostic Christianity was wiped out by the Romans (or went well underground), and gnostic Judaism was pretty limited by those that thought CE rabbis and sages spoke directly for Yahweh. Reform Judaism is pretty gnostic today. Now, Buddhism has remained gnostic for the most part.

Quote:
They just cannot accept the rigid dogma and preposterous theological notions that organized religions of all sorts propose.
__________________
Love withers under constraint; its very essence is liberty. It is compatible neither with envy, jealousy or fear. It is there most pure, perfect and unlimited when its votaries live in confidence, equality and unreserve. -- Shelley

Mags (poly, F, 63), dating... again!
Pixi (poly, F, 41) my darling nesting partner since January 2009
Master, (mono, M, 37), Pixi's Dom/bf since April 2013

Last edited by Magdlyn; 06-03-2017 at 07:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-09-2017, 09:25 AM
Tinwen Tinwen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: central Europe
Posts: 1,373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al99 View Post
There are as many paths as there are individuals (imho). It does seem to me that what is important - if one is to identify as a Christian - is that one aspires to kindness, love, and forgiveness. Also seems to me that has little to do with one's choice of sexual expression - be it poly, mono, hetero, gay, pan,.... etc... - other than seeking to be kind and loving in whatever expression is chosen.
Nicely written. To me, whoever self-identifies as Christian is Christian, I don't understand the various sub-branches, but I know Christian and poly people.
__________________
Me: female, 29
Idealist: my partner, 39
Meta: live-in partner with Idealist, 44
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-09-2017, 11:33 PM
Al99's Avatar
Al99 Al99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,647
Default

Quote:
Actually the (real) letters of Paul were written before the earliest gospel (Mark). The gospels were written to expand the Christ idea into fun myths... not the other way around. Half the writings attributed to Paul, though, plus the later short gospels, were written after the 4 main (synoptic) gospels, which all grew out of Mark and a couple other oral or written sources. The pseudo-Paulines were written late in the first century or early 2nd, when it was obvious Jesus was not coming back any time soon, and the church needed rules around what the f to do now?
Nice summary, Magdlyn - thanks! I did do a bit of reading in this area many years ago - and the main thought I came away with was that a at least a fair number of the critical Biblical scholars (and so it seems to me as well for what little that is worth) concluded that Paul was the single individual most responsible for laying the foundation for both the deification of Jesus and the theology of vicarious atonement - arguably the two most important cornerstones of main stream Nicene-based Christian theology (both Catholic and Protestant). And since his letters were among the first important circulated Christian doctrinal literature, that would certainly make sense.

In contrast to classic Christian theology, my recollection is that there seemed to be a strong opinion among many of these scholars that the "Gospel of Thomas", an early Christian Gnostic document of Truth sayings, is most likely the closest thing we have available today to the actual teachings of Jesus - and the closest to the hypothetical "Q document", also believed to have been a collection of Jesus' sayings even closer to his actual lifetime. Although one does get glimpses into what Jesus most likely actually taught in the traditional Gospels - especially in the Sermon on the Mount, and most pointedly in his distillation of the Law: "Love God - Love each other". And that one statement is my take on the essence of Jesus' teaching and what is important to me as I identify as a Christian (even if one of Gnostic inclination).

Quote:
Gnosticism isn't limited to Christianity, it was a common belief system in Greek, Jewish and Eastern theology of the time. Gnostic Christianity was wiped out by the Romans (or went well underground), and gnostic Judaism was pretty limited by those that thought CE rabbis and sages spoke directly for Yahweh. Reform Judaism is pretty gnostic today. Now, Buddhism has remained gnostic for the most part.
Again, nice insights. I will just add that it was the early mainstream Church that did as much to wipe out those early Christian Gnostics as the Romans - although by the time of Nicaea, they were pretty much synonymous. I had some exposure earlier in my life to Reform Judaism through some close friends - so did some reading there as well - and I would agree that there does exist a definite Gnostic element in modern Reform Judaism. (Those of us who have a Gnostic Bent will always be grateful for the Nag Hammadi discovery!)

I do personally envision Jesus as an Ascended Master/Avatar/Totally Enlightened being (possibly one of several who have incarnated throughout history) with his message of love and forgiveness as having been especially appropriate for the cruelty of the Roman Empire (too bad the Church that was founded in his name has often not done much better). But even if there is no truth to that at all, his message still resonates with me. But that's just me.

Al
__________________
Dramatis Personae:
Me: Al99, poly, heterosexual male, 50's
Becky: married to Al99, poly, heterosexual female, late 30's
Bouncingbetty: ldr girlfriend to Al99, poly, pansexual female, early 30's
Ben: Becky's medium-ldr bf, heterosexual male, 40's
_________________________________________


My Introductory Post - An Unexpected Introduction to Poly.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-24-2017, 10:26 PM
Suede Suede is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 1
Default Intention

This is an interesting thread with a lot of fascinating perspectives. I haven't read all of the comments/replies, but being spiritual since the mid 60's (think Dr. David Hawkins, The Biology of Belief, Meditation with small bells) I prescribed to the notion that as long as my intentions were based on educated and well thought decisions and my feelings were allowed to grow naturally in the relationship and into love, and in my case a Triad with two males, then the relationship (marraige) would be blessed. I have not experienced a feeling that was negative re my spirituality or ultimate spiritual destination based on the Intention to love more.
__________________
I lay between you, a soul quiescent, blithe in loving so sincere, your endowments my boon, loving....
slide easy over that what is soft of me, my heart in rhythm with yours and yours (2002)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-24-2017, 10:39 PM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Yelm, Washington
Posts: 16,289
Default

Sounds like you have thought out your spirituality, and as it relates to your triad.
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-12-2018, 06:06 AM
XavierreBoncoeur XavierreBoncoeur is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 6
Default

It is difficult to be in a one-sided relationship. You should give your relationship sometime because decision took up in a hurry often lead to disappointment. You should take help of some professional like a counselor, therapist, psychic like Voyante SÚrieuse or some other professionals that can make you understand about your problems, whether the step you are going to take will break you or make you.

Last edited by Emm; 04-13-2018 at 01:18 AM. Reason: Removed link
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:07 AM.