Can Free Love be a Christian Lifestyle ?

Post Reply New Topic

It may be easier to argue the general ethics of this question but the most radical question is:
"Can someone be a true Christian and practice free love between consenting adults?"

With the most open mind I have concluded that this is almost impossible for this would not only require a sexual revolution but a revolution in society as a whole.

And this would require a revolution that would change humanity for we would not be human anymore but we would be like the immortal angels who neither marry or are given in marriage.

It would be like every man and woman having a thousand lovers, a thousand sons and daughters, and a thousand mothers and fathers.

The second logical question would be:
"Has any community tried the practice of free love?"
And the answer is yes. From 1848 to 1880 the Oneida Christian community of up to 300 members practiced free love but only amongst themselves. Although this community was very successful their eventual downfall was child molestation. However this does not mean their lifestyle was unethical because child molestation can happen even in traditional families. What this does mean is that children need extra protection and they should be adults before they decide what lifestyle to choose and if they decide to opt out of the community they should receive their cash inheritance.

Christianity has proven to be very adaptable. Most Christian traditions (e.g. Christmas) are based on recruitment of adherents to other belief systems. If "free love" (or whatever you want to call it) becomes mainstream, most religions will adapt to ensure their survival.

The most obvious ones who practiced it were the Manson family. But I get what you are saying. As long as people are not uber creepy like Manson and his deranged followers, why not just let them live that way if they choose? Jesus Himself doesn't condemn it. Does he really say anything about marriage? Most of what people respond to isn't what Jesus supposedly said, but stuff his followers wrote long after his death.

Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female", and said "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"?

NO! Because of the fact that "Free Love" is merely a convenient euphemism for "Promiscuous Sex", "Free Love" is incompatible with True Christianity, as True Christianity requires that (1) marriage is between one man and one woman, and (2) sex outside of a True Christian marriage is Adultery, and therefore a sin.

So, either engage in "Free Love" and deny being a True Christian, or be a True Christian and have sex only with your spouse in a True Christian one-man-one-woman marriage.

Free Love =\= Christian Love

(PS: If you had actually read your Bible, you would know this already.)

Jesus never said that though. Jesus was critical of the Torah, right? Can you really blend old and new testaments knowing what Jesus stood for? I go by what Jesus said in the gospels, that is, assuming the apostles who wrote them were being truthful. Regardless, I like the message.
I don't like reading the Acts of the Apostles etc because they aren't necessarily a part of Jesus' messages. More like his followers'.

Oh, really?

Matthew 19:1-11 (NIV)



According to the Bible, Jesus Himself acknowledge that the institution of one-man-one-woman marriage was ordained by the Creator, and that divorce was created by Man. He also acknowledged the disciples' reasoning that if there is adultery (sex outside of marriage), it is better to not be married at all.

Therefore, "Free Love" (e.g., Promiscuous Sex) is not only incompatible with Christianity, but with the teachings of Christ and the ordinances of the Creator.

QED

It is better not to marry but practice free love instead?

No ... it's more like: "If you're going to practice promiscuous sex*, then it is better to not marry."


(*Let's call it what it is; "Free Love" is a only pleasant euphemism for promiscuous sex.)

That passage only places married and divorced women off limits. One could still enjoy coitus with an unmarried wench.

Love itself should be promiscuous. People should learn to love even their enemies. The question remains whether or not sex as an expression of love should be promiscuous.

Now we can all agree that true Christianity does not allow harlotry. However by definition harlotry is recreational sex without love.

A traditional marriage is indeed an expression of love because a man and a woman both pledge their support for their children.
Children are not left to shiver in the cold and starve in the streets.

However a big family could also be an expression of love. If everyone shares money, housing, food and resources children will be well provided for. A bigger family will give children extra protection. If a traditional marriage ends up in divorce the children become like bastards and have to beg for child support. However in the big family if one person decides to leave the effect is like a drop in the bucket and children still have plenty of parents that will love them and care for them.

If Jesus said all that stuff about marriage, maybe he was really married and the Church tried to cover it up...

Do not confuse love with sex. They are not the same thing, and it is possible to have one without the other.


This is Biblical.


Only in the minds of those who wish to sin and still go to Heaven.


Agreed.


By YOUR definition. Harlotry is synonymous with prostitution, which is defined in most commercial and legal dictionaries as: "the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money." Note that the definition does not exclude love, but only addresses is as a business transaction.


Wrong.

In no wedding I have ever attended or participated in was there ever any provision in the vows of "Child Support". It is, however, addressed in abundance through the secular legal system (e.g., "Family Law" or Divorce Court).


Wake up! It happens all of the time, and not just in third-world countries.


Or an expression of patriarchal dominance and the subjugation of women as property and breeding machines.


If there is money, housing, food, and resources to share. In many third-world countries, there is little to share, yet parents keep producing children until the woman can bear no more.


With limited money, housing, food, and resources, a bigger family means that there is less to go around.


This is an archaic belief that has little or no relevance in our modern age, where parents may marry, procreate, and divorce many times over.


No, in third-world countries, they have to beg in the streets. In America, their custodial parents must petition the courts for child support, although in most divorce cases, the allocation is automatic.


This makes no sense at all. A child has only two parents. If one leaves, then there is only one parent left. If a parent remarries, then the new spouse is a step-parent, and may have no legal rights or obligations to support the children.

Obviously, kid, you have never been married, had children, endured a divorce, or had to pay Child Support -- I have.

Your push for a society that embraces promiscuous sex as it's social norm is both misguided and ill-conceived.

In other words: It isn't going to happen.

Pure speculation. There exists no valid evidence to indicate this; and, in spite of all of the woo-woo conspiracy theories, just because there is a lack of evidence does not mean that the evidence was suppressed - it means that it is most likely that the evidence never existed in the first place. Keep in mind that there is already a limited number of resources that even mention that Jesus of Nazareth existed in the first place, and even fewer resources that give any credible details of His life.

"Do speculate beyond what the available evidence will allow" is another foundation-stone of the Scientific Methods. If there is no evidence for your speculations, then those speculations are worthless.

Artemis Bosch used to come up with some fancy Where's Waldo-esque paintings that seemed to promote free love.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ise%29.jpg

Painters tend to be drawn to those bathing scenes...