But how can that be?
Submitted by F.O.D. on February 17 1999 at 07:36:11
In reply to faithfulness Submitted by Ray on February 16 1999 at 01:43:41
|
Hi Ray, I have a bit of a cold and my **something** levels are almost full with thinking about all the issues we've been discussing, so I haven't been able to reply till now. How does the Queen song go? "I'm going slightly mad..." I'm trying to toss your comment about open sexual relationships around without just spurning the thought (the greatest dishonour I could give). I know you well enough to know you aren't saying it idly or thoughtlessly. Still I don't know I could ever seriously agree, not this millenium anyway. OK remaining faithful to a spouse when one of you has committed adultery. Fair enough, it's great that they can stay together despite of that. But I think that says very little about freedom in Christ in faithful sexual relationships, and everything about grace and forgiveness in spite of a partner's infidelity. What I mean is, the idea of marriage being exclusive I get from Jesus, when he reminds us about divorce "what God has brought together, let man not put asunder". He himself said that having one partner sleep with a third person was reasonable grounds for separating. "Keep the marriage bed pure." So in what way could accepting non-exclusive sexual relationships as healthy be good news? Good news for one's hormones, certainly, but for one's fidelity, I don't see it. The ancients had polygamy. Do you mean something like that? But all instances of it in the Bible are negative, with the two wives bitching between themselves or the sons of different mothers warring between themselves. So much so that eventually Paul wrote that the church leaders should specifically have only one wife. I guess I'm saying it's one thing to be compassionate to those who are caught in extra- sexual relations, but another thing to suggest those relations themselves are healthy. I'm sure you'll have more to say so I'll wait for it now :) F.O.D. |