How often have you heard someone say they have permission to date, gone for it, and then found that the persons partner, while giving them permission hates you for taking advantage of it?
If you give them permission, shouldn't you be less harsh on those that fill the need?
I've seen this situation often arise, and I understand that it's difficult to share someone you love..and of course theres 2 different degrees of "difficult".
1# Say your at a fellowship, your partner asks you for someone, and you know that person, or at least have seen them, and you can somewhat tell if your ok with them or not.
Then when you say yes, you know it's just that evening and you can find something or someone else to occupy your time so that you don't feel "it" quite as acutely.
I like to call this "dying grace", not because it's such a trail, but because you don't have "dying grace" all the time. God gives it to you when you need it.
(Now this is the harder kind of grace)
2# Say you or your partner go somewhere for extended periods of time. Theres no telling what will come up, and you won't be there to judge the contestants.
So maybe you give a few ground rules, possibly even an age limit so you can have the peace that they will be mature enough to handle someone else's property....and then you just wait it out.
It isn't easy, but it's love
I am very gratefully to have someone that lets me date sometimes, and I am happy that he can also enjoy this Family perk.
I also am thankful that his taste has always run to people that I am proud to share him with.
But I know this isn't always the case for everyone, and I'm not trying to down play your pain if you've been hurt.
However, if after a letting your lover have sex which they did with your consent, keeping your rules, and yet you still feel angry, hurt and envious or jealous..then you shouldn't be dating, maybe your just not ready.
And that's not a bad thing, it's personal, it's between you, God, and your lover, and no one should make you feel bad about your decision.
The LOL is not a pride trip.
Here in Europe I think it's almost become trendy to have open relationships, and in some cases it's forced people to do and let things happen they weren't ready for.
Seriously people, its the LOL, not something that gets you into the "cool swingers circle" by blood sweat and a multitude of tears and possibly sleepless nights.
(swinging is fun though, lets not bash that too much)
There is also a distinct difference between those that have an open relationship across the board, and those that have one in line with the LOL.
By now I've kind of touched on points all over the place and have more or less lost my train of thought.
But basically I think I'm trying to say that, if your truly living the law of love (the sexual aspect that is), you shouldn't be unloving to those whom your partner dates, you shouldn't smile but secretly hate them, and especially not take it out on your partner whom you gave the permission to.
So in ending, God Bless those, that between prayer and discussion, make decisions in line with the word. And whether or not they chose to "go for it", they aren't swayed by public opinion, instead they put the LOVE factor first.
21 comments:
It's nice to hear other people saying stuff like this. In our home we've made a push to be "a force for good" when it comes to all these aspects of the Law of Love and really living it the way it should be.
Unfortunately, it's true about Europe... but hey, you're a force for good and I certainly hope more people feel the same way. Rock on!
Very well said! I couldn't agree with you more.
I think it's like that in alot of places- not just Europe. Personally when I hear about a couple who has a "closed" relationship I think; wow good for them for living up to their level of faith and being honest about it- as opposed to faking faith or being "trendy" and living the sexual side of the law of love-unlawfully.
just my 2 cents
Blurring the Line...
I'd like to point out that there is quite a difference between "Swinging" , and Living the LOL. Far too often, and to a lot of peoples hurt, these to points have been mistaken as one. "Swinging" falls under the "freedom of the spirit/one wife vision" -the abolition of the Mosaic Law through Christ. While the sexual aspect of LOL is strictly sacrificial ("Love thy neighbor as thyself") -not to be influenced by ones own lustful desires.
Specifically, if one has unselfish motives for requesting a date -i.e the other party is in need- then it would fall under the law of love. Thats not to say that there will never be sexual attraction between two people attempting to live the sexual side of the LOL, but rather that attraction or lust should have much bearing -if any.
Freedom from the Mosaic law, however, does allow us to pursue such (lustful) interests as long as the fulfill the following criterion
- Such pursuit adheres to the LOL
Basically; if it causes undue hurt or anguish, is a source of disunity, or is committed in dishonesty, false representations, or an unloving way, it is unlawful, and a breach of Christ's Law of love.
Once Christ's Law is breached, you'd then default to the Mosaic law in which you'd be guilty of committing Adultery.
Of course the LOL, and EVERY aspect of our lives are inextricably intertwined (including our freedoms in the Spirit) but I believe a lot of problems could be diagnosed and possibly prevented or rectified if we'd make this distinction -and make it clearly.
Sorry, a rather heinous mistype...
but rather that attraction or lust should have much bearing -if any.
Should have been..
but rather that attraction or lust should not have much bearing -if any.
I was under the impression that the abolition of the Mosaic Law through Christ, gave way to the one law, "LOVE".
Thus I think both sacrificial dating, and the freedom to date those whom you desire(given it's done in love), both fall under this greater "Law of Love".
(I specifically didn't get into the CTP side of sex, because I think most people can agree it's quite easy to share either yourself or your partner when you know it isn't necessarily desirable, but rather loving thy neighbor as the Lord asks)
I'm not rigidly quoting letter of the law here, and almost never do.
I gather from comments others have made, that the post was understood as intended.
But I genuinely appreciate your clarification for the "Johnny's" out there.
"Of course the LOL, and EVERY aspect of our lives are inextricably intertwined (including our freedoms in the Spirit)"
As you can see, I agree that our sexual freedoms do fall under the jurisdiction of the LOL. But if you read the Letters, I believe they concentrate on situations where there is a need (whenever referring to the "Sexual aspect of the Law of Love") and rarely deal with situations where it's simply one's desire to share outside his or her relationship -savvy?
Everything we do should be governed by Love, yes, but the sexual aspect (specifically) of the LOL is making our bodies a living Sacrifice wholly acceptable unto God -as far as I understand , anyway.
So while our sexual freedom should be governed by the LOL, it is no more specific to (the sexual aspect of the LOL) than, say, imbibing alcohol. Or a better example would be Paul's advice on eating meat in Romans 14.
In any case, I didn't mean to imply that your post was unclear, I simply used it as a forum to convey my own thoughts on the LOL.
Well well dear Luca, please take a moment to read my post. Then revise your statement. If you'd like to discuss it further, post your mail address, and I will contact you. I'd rather not post mine. In any case, I never once said it was wrong to share sexually. Nor did I say it was not mentioned (in the GNs) at all. But I don't see why I should defend myself against something I never said.
I'm sorry you misunderstood... Mr.Anonymous
Well I suppose the fault is mine Luca. Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your post. I acknowledge that possibility; however, the language you used was -to me- highly prejudiced (Typical. There is always someone), accusatory (who for some reason remains anonymous) that wants to start a massive debate about something they think they know a lot about.) And disrespectful (rolls eyes).
Your first "comment" dealt with something I never said, yet you implied that I did - I tried to clarify that.
Your second comment was an opinion that actually dealt with the subject, and I respect that.
Lastly, when you quoted me, it was a sore misrepresentation, and I resent that most. Your post had hardly anything to do with your views on the LOL but was focused on my character, false assumptions, and your own sexual disposition.
Perhaps I could do better next time in my communication -again I was expressing my views on the LOL and it's application. I'm sorry if I said something to offend you.
why do ppl have to do this..ruins the post and things just HAVE to get nasty..trying to defend one's integrity..
No offense was taken and none was meant to be given. I'm sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way.
My post was actually against this sort of debate, in agreement with Phil.
Peace and love (possibly in the sexual form, between consenting partners of the opposite sex and of legal age, and fulfilling all the requirements of the LOL.)
ha! Luca I like your style. I dont mind debating, even about the LOL which lets admit, is a big topic and quite complex and multifaceted. But its much nicer when done in the right way, without getting personal, and even better when people actually put their names to their opinions.
so bravo.
Just to give credit where it's due Phil.
Mr anonymous after reading my reply to him clearly stated that he wasn't trying to disprove, fight, or clarify my post.
He was simply stating some of his opinions on the LOL.
The row was in fact started by Luca which is fine..debate is good and healthy, and whether through misunderstanding or insult, slight bantering went on, was apologised for, and is half erased.
Well that was me clarifying..
Now to the important question of, who's Phil?
Perhaps it's better to attach a name, your name, to a post. Perhaps not. Why personalize an argument? If I was discussing myself, maybe I would put a name to the comment. But I was discussing an idea. Which doesn't need a face. In fact, if I did put a name to the comment, it'd have become a personal issue with my name replacing that of Mr. Anonymous -while all the insults flew just the same. As it is, you can't place me, I'm quite alright with that, since I really don't want to build a prejudice against my person through one misunderstood comment. I've met Luca, and sadly, I was unhappy with him for his comment. If he'd have remained anonymous, I wouldn't have been able to connect the offense with the person -thus keeping it impersonal. While we will never be able to fully extricate our opinions/ideas from our emotions, it helps to be aware of, and try to minimize their influence over the debate. Being courteous is imperative. Remaining anonymous -I believe- helps to separate the idea and the person. So I will continue to post as "Anonymous".
"does it matter who Phil is? ..does it change the argument?
in the spirit of anonymity, I shall be anonymous"
it doesn't matter who phill is to the argument, it matters to me, or rather my curiosity.
and in the spirit of not going back on my word.
I shall delete your anonymous and completely useless comment
maybe it's the cute japo that lives with us...
sonialee also lives with me.
you are famous in these parts.
;)
Post a Comment