How Do You Respond ?

[Anonymous]

I am concerned that sometime in my life while defending polygyny, there will be a "Bible scholar" that will argue that lesbian relations between women are never specifically condemned in the Bible, just as polygyny is never condemned, and then through guilt by association the "Bible scholar" will declare that polygyny is just as sinful as lesbianism.

I really don't know how to respond to that. I don't want to go down the "God intended a man for a woman" road because I'm afraid it would quickly be turned against me as "God intended ONE man for ONE woman". I would be grateful for any suggestions.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

Re: How Do You Respond?

The difference is that lesbianism is not regulated and talked about at all, nor practiced by, or told about, in any scripture or Law, and polygyny IS. Lesbianism could be argued from a "not specifically condemned" position because lesbianism, a term I hate to use, is found nowhere...omitted, and therefore not specifically condemned.

We are not arguing polygamy from an omission in the Bible, and we are not saying that polygyny is acceptable because God did not specifically condemn it. We are saying that polygyny is Godly and acceptable for those that practice it in Godly manner because polygyny it is supported by Law, and then further solidified, (as if it needed to be, the Law is enough) by God's action and reaction towards His Holy persons that engaged in it, and lived it. To compare the lawfulness of lesbianism by omission to the lawfulness of polygyny by command and Law is as to compare apples and oranges.

Polygyny is found in the Law, exampled by His saints, fathers, kings prophets, regulated, blessed, talked about, the many opportunities to condemn avoided, the gospels, apostles, etc. when afforded the chance to address it specifically write to NOT condemn it,....ad nauseum....

Don't be concerned about getting the creation ordinance of "ONE" pushed back at you...He also says to "love thy neighbor" and we know this does not mean only one, but every one of your neighbors, and so it is with between a husband and wife, or wives, one flesh with them all, etc...

Others can weigh in, but if you need some help with the creation ordinance issue, then let us know.

 

[Doc]

Re: How Do You Respond?

First of all, if he does this, he is using what is called a 'false argument'. He is trying to make a direct comparison between lesbianism and plural marriage, when they are two separate arguments.

The Bible is silent on the issue of relations between women. The Bible is NOT silent on plural marriage. The Bible gives literally DOZENS of examples of plural marriage; it gives NO examples of lesbian relations. The Bible outlines specific rules and regulations regarding plural marriage; the Bible give NO rules and regulations regarding lesbian relations.

Now, before everyone starts reacting in a negative way, I am NOT endorsing lesbianism; I am simply pointing out that the Bible is silent on the subject. Why? Beats me. One could INFER that since the Bible specifically condemns male-male sexual relations, and even calling that an abomination, that female-female relations are also condemned. However, that is an argument by inference only.

The only place in the Bible that some people use to condemn female-female relations is not to be found in the Old Testament at all, but rather in the New Testament in the book of Romans. The passage in particular is:

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

However, it should be pointed out that for a good majority of church history, this passage of Scripture was interpreted not to speak to lesbianism, but rather to those women who refuse to bear children. A comparison we would make today would be to those women who would choose a career over childbirth (the natural use of the woman's body being to bear children; by refusing to bear children, she would be going against the very nature of a woman).

I know that this response is controversial. The "Bible scholar" who would use this argument would know that as well. I think that I explained earlier about the false argument, so enough said there.

Here is something I have learned in my experience in the Lord. The Lord has chosen to speak specifically on a wide variety of subjects that pertain to our lives and our future, sometimes in some very great detail (plural marriage being one of those things). For whatever reasons that He chooses, He is silent on some subjects. On those things that the Lord is silent on, I try to be as well.

I hope this helps.

Blessings,

Doc

 

[Mark C]

Re: How Do You Respond?

Very good. Both of you beat me to it, and said it very well.

Agreed! There is a big difference between "silence" and "providing direction".

Perhaps those who try to teach from ignorance should simply be reminded to keep silent themselves. (Doc said that more politely. )

 

[lutherangirl]

Re: How Do You Respond?

Obviously, I'm not a Bible scholar, but I guess the lesbian issue has to do with two women being together without a husband as a headcovering or something like that? Help someone? Does anyone sorta see where I'm going with this?

Michelle

 

[DeeAnn]

Re: How Do You Respond?

Yes, Michelle! I get what you're sayin'. We had our Thanksgiving today and my brain is too tired, but I do think your point pertains and can complement the above mens' posts.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: How Do You Respond?

Thanks so much to all that responded! I know the positive proofs of polygyny backwards and forwards, but I guess I'm afraid that I would get emotionally worked up in a confrontation and end up not quite knowing how to answer some of the "false arguments" that will be thrown at me. The truth is, all arguments against the Biblical validity of polygyny are false arguments, but there are some that I feel more capable of proving to be false than others.

I think it would probably be best to continue to focus on the truth of God's perfect, unchanging Word, instead of trying to counter every ridiculously false argument that is bound to come up somewhere down the line!

I appreciate this forum so very much and have great respect for those that post here. Thank you for being a true community of God's people!

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

Re: How Do You Respond?

I think it would probably be best to continue to focus on the truth of God's perfect, unchanging Word, instead of trying to counter every ridiculously false argument that is bound to come up somewhere down the line!

That's very true! In my experience over the years I have come to find out that the MOPs will try each and every way to make their POV seem corrrect, but the the thing that I've come to realize is that, more than anything, they're trying to convince themselves more than they're trying to convince me. Their subconscience is wrestling with having to deal with the truth and they twist and turn to try and keep from having to accept it. The skill involved is realizing the difference between someone who is really wanting to discuss the issue and someone who is trying to hang on to the way they want to believe. Arguing with someone who themselves are wrestling with their own conscience is futile and, like you said, we should just continue to focus on the truth of Yahuweh's perfect unchanging word.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: How Do You Respond?

I am concerned that sometime in my life while defending polygyny, there will be a "Bible scholar" that will argue that lesbian relations between women are never specifically condemned in the Bible, just as polygyny is never condemned, and then through guilt by association the "Bible scholar" will declare that polygyny is just as sinful as lesbianism.

I really don't know how to respond to that. I don't want to go down the "God intended a man for a woman" road because I'm afraid it would quickly be turned against me as "God intended ONE man for ONE woman". I would be grateful for any suggestions.

Hi Deut30,

The simplest argument is the argument from design. Men and women were made to...ummm...fit together. Two men don't, and neither do two women.

Along with that, the relationships only work properly if one is in the position of authority that God has specified as appropriate in Scripture. If a man marries a woman, then the man has been placed in the dominate position of leadership and the woman in the subordinate position. Male homosexuality involves two men who cannot properly take the role God has created them for: Leadership. There can only be one leader in a family. Female homosexuality has a similar, but less serious issue, since neither can be properly subordinate to the other as God intended. On the other hand, Scripture is silent on the issue. That suggests to me that God neither condemns nor approves lesbianism.

There is a vast difference between the male and female versions of homosexuality. Male homosexuality involves seriously dangerous and unclean penetration of each other. Female homosexuality doesn't. God really had a thing about keeping bodily wastes away from the Israelites. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why He singled out male homosexuality and not female homosexuality.

Another interesting tidbit is that male homosexuality has an extremely high crime, violence, and suicide rate associated with it, while female homosexuality does not.

But back to design...any idiot can see that a electric cord plugs into a wall socket. How can they not see that men are meant to be with women?


John for Christ

 

[sweetlissa]

Re: How Do You Respond?

I think it is very simple. Sexual relations belong inside of marriage. Women are not to be married to each other. Without marriage, sexual contact is a sin. So if two women can't be married to each other then sexual contact between them is a sin.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

To me this makes it very clear that sex between women is unnatural and not acceptable to God. I would rather er on the side of conservative, but since I have no inclination that way it is easy for me to say.

SweetLissa

 

[Paul not the apostle]

Re: How Do You Respond?

Good posts.

Much of this 2 women talk is probably innappropriate for this public forum, and should be avoided unless in a private setting, especially when the verses used to condemn or support, and more specifically their translations and interpretations, are argued by the highest intellects and Biblical scholars. Much of the verses will apply or not apply based on the individuals definition of "sex".

I will stop there, and hopefully so will this part/angle/side of this thread.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: How Do You Respond?

Good posts.

Much of this 2 women talk is probably innappropriate for this public forum, and should be avoided unless in a private setting, especially when the verses used to condemn or support, and more specifically their translations and interpretations, are argued by the highest intellects and Biblical scholars. Much of the verses will apply or not apply based on the individuals definition of "sex".

I will stop there, and hopefully so will this part/angle/side of this thread.

Hi Paul not,

I agree. I tried to be descriptive but not too much so, nor offensive. But I do think that the "design argument" presents one of the best and most obvious arguments.


John for Christ

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

Re: How Do You Respond?

I would rather er on the side of conservative,.........

Well put!

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Re: How Do You Respond?

I think it is very simple. Sexual relations belong inside of marriage. Women are not to be married to each other. Without marriage, sexual contact is a sin. So if two women can't be married to each other then sexual contact between them is a sin.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

To me this makes it very clear that sex between women is unnatural and not acceptable to God. I would rather er on the side of conservative, but since I have no inclination that way it is easy for me to say.

SweetLissa

Notice how it does not say women with women
But it does say men with men

So in ENGLISH Romans 1:26 says nothing wrong with woman with woman. But clearly something is wrong with man with man.
Also leviticus 18 and 20 say nothing wrong with woman with woman.

Perhaps the unnatural things were something like woman with animals and other things. Or even women with men they were not married to would be unnatural. Or unmarried woman masturbating or watching/performing sex shows/dressing immodestly, and so on and so forth. Anyway in ENGLISH it does not state that the unnatural thing is for women with women, just that women were doing something unnatural.

Also 1 corinthians 6:9 NIV
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
1 corinthians 6:9 KJV
(G2228) KnowG1492 ye notG3756 thatG3754 the unrighteousG94 shall notG3756 inheritG2816 the kingdomG932 of God?G2316 Be notG3361 deceived:G4105 neitherG3777 fornicators,G4205 norG3777 idolaters,G1496 norG3777 adulterers,G3432 norG3777 effeminate,G3120 norG3777 abusers of themselves with mankind,G733

G733
ἀρσενοκοίτης
arsenokoitēs
ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace
From G730 and G2845; a sodomite: - abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.

G730
ἄῤῥην, αρσην
arrhēn arsēn
ar'-hrane, ar'-sane
Probably from G142; male (as stronger for lifting): - male, man.

G2845
κοίτη
koitē
koy'-tay
From G2749; a couch; by extension cohabitation; by implication the male sperm: - bed, chambering, X conceive.

In 1 corinthians 6:9 it does not forbid woman from being homosexual but men specifically! The word in Greek for male is used.

So there are at least 5 verses that could be specifically against man with man homosexuality in the Bible and at best one verse directly and specifically against woman on woman homosexuality which is debatable in English. Although other verses to prevent adultery and fornication could possibly be used indirectly against lesbianism. [Except for they might not forbid it if both women were married to the same man are the women also married to each other?]

If two woman were married to the same man would there be anything BIBLICALLY wrong with them having relations with each other. I am not sure if that would be called sex outside or inside marriage.

Perhaps there are no verses against lesbianism because it is okay for a husbands wives to have lesbian relations with each other so long as they do not cheat on their husband with women he is not married to.

Or perhaps there is one verse against lesbianism if Romans 1:26 forbids lesbianism in the original language. But then it begs the question was lesbianism between two women married to the same man fine until the new testament?

Anyway either scripture forbids or does not forbid lesbianism. And whether lesbianism is allowed or forbidden would not allow or forbid polygamy.

I would like to know if anyone can clearly show if Romans 1:26 forbids or fails to forbid lesbianism.

 

[Tlaloc]

If two woman were married to the same man would there be anything BIBLICALLY wrong with them having relations with each other. I am not sure if that would be called sex outside or inside marriage.

Perhaps there are no verses against lesbianism because it is okay for a husbands wives to have lesbian relations with each other so long as they do not cheat on their husband with women he is not married to.

My families poly search started with researching lesbianism, and that was essentially our conclusions.

Romans 1:26 does fail to explicitly forbid lesbianism, Clement of Alexandria took it to mean a specific male\female sex act that did not allow for conception, so original language exegesis doesn't help here. I recall other early church fathers coming to similar conclusions, but I can't remember the specifics and don't have time to look things up. After that its just like Doc said:

However, it should be pointed out that for a good majority of church history, this passage of Scripture was interpreted not to speak to lesbianism, but rather to those women who refuse to bear children.

If someone believes Romans is implicitly against lesbianism thats no skin off my nose. Arguing with someones convictions doesn't usually profit, and its really an in house matter anyway. I can't really say much if someone claims it implicitly forbids lesbianism.

In any case in the situation you talked about no woman is changing her natural use to be a wife and mother, those roles are fulfilled rather than exchanged.

Anyway, I agree best with John for Christ when he said

That suggests to me that God neither condemns nor approves lesbianism.

Its an area where no universal rules for action are laid down.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I am concerned that sometime in my life while defending polygyny, there will be a "Bible scholar" that will argue that lesbian relations between women are never specifically condemned in the Bible, just as polygyny is never condemned, and then through guilt by association the "Bible scholar" will declare that polygyny is just as sinful as lesbianism.

I really don't know how to respond to that. I don't want to go down the "God intended a man for a woman" road because I'm afraid it would quickly be turned against me as "God intended ONE man for ONE woman". I would be grateful for any suggestions.

If the woman has a lesbian relationship before marrying her husband and it breaks her virginity, she will have violated God's law

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NIV

I would not argue that the man was made for one woman but that the woman was made for one man. I would try to make a case that women are expected to get married and if they have had a lesbian relationship before getting married it is a criminal offense if they break their evidence of virginity. (I have heard some women are born without "the evidence", so if that is correct you can not condemn the women who were born without but rather the act of choosing to lose the evidence.) I would argue that they can not stay in lesbian relationships because eventually they need to make babies and when they get married and are not a virgin the previous lesbian act was a sin. HOWEVER THIS ARGUMENT CAN ONLY BE MADE IF WOMAN ARE EXPECTED TO GET MARRIED.

I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
1 Timothy 5:14 KJV

Now this argument does not address the situation of if a married woman has lesbian relations with her husbands other wives. This argument would not show that such an act would be wrong.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

If two woman were married to the same man would there be anything BIBLICALLY wrong with them having relations with each other. I am not sure if that would be called sex outside or inside marriage.

Perhaps there are no verses against lesbianism because it is okay for a husbands wives to have lesbian relations with each other so long as they do not cheat on their husband with women he is not married to.

My families poly search started with researching lesbianism, and that was essentially our conclusions.

So if your first wife is straight. And there is a woman interested in joining your family who is bisexual does that create problems? Or if your first wife is bisexual and there is a woman interested in joining your family who is straight does that create problems?

Because if there is only one bisexual wife. And she likes women and there is no woman other than the straight wife. Maybe the straight wife will feel harassed or the bisexual wife will feel unfulfilled. Of course you could get a second bisexual wife, but it might be difficult to do that quickly plus three or more wives is expensive.

 

[Tlaloc]

If the woman has a lesbian relationship before marrying her husband and it breaks her virginity, she will have violated God's law

I think there is a strong case that any lesbian relationship before marriage could be defined as turning against a woman's natural use, esp if she does not intend to marry a man and have a family.

But if it is wrong the reason its wrong isn't because of the breaking, as on rare occasion serious accidents and injuries to that area will break the cherry incidentally (Thats part of why it was once considered immodest for a girl to ride anything but side-saddle). I expect your right that its possible women may be born without one, though I know of no research on that topic.


About the second issue, I don't know, each girlfreind we've had has been bi... That said I think lesbian is kind of a misnomer. Two women can't have sexual intercourse so its more of a matter of degree to which they want to be close to each other. Some poly wives want nothing to do with the other wife, some want them in the same household, some want to share a bed but not anything sexual, and some want to be as open with their other wife as they are with their husband. My wife wants another wife for us too and is attracted to women, but she doesn't mind if that second wife only wants to share a bed and nothing more. She would have a problem if she wanted a different room or household though.

 

[Mark C]

RE: "lesbianism"

Male homosexuality is explicitly, unambiguously, and repeatedly condemned in the strongest possible terms ("abomination", or the Hebrew equivalent, is pretty definitive).

So far as "lesbianism" or "female homosexuality" is confirmed, the Bible is silent.

Everything else that is said on the topic thus amounts to an "argument from silence", and could even be said to be a forbidden "adding to" His Word (which the Pharisees were UNambiguously condemned as "hypocrites" for doing).

For my own part, and my own part ONLY, I conclude that a man is responsible before His Master for what happens in his house. It is not my place to judge, much less intrude.



(And, Katie - any "scholar" who equates something that YHVH has MUCH to say about -- like patriarchy, or "polygyny" -- with something about which He is SILENT, is no 'scholar'. Worse still, such a viper may be a "liar, and the Truth is not in him.")

 

[sweetlissa]

Paul not the apostle wrote

Much of this 2 women talk is probably innappropriate for this public forum, and should be avoided unless in a private setting, especially when the verses used to condemn or support, and more specifically their translations and interpretations, are argued by the highest intellects and Biblical scholars. Much of the verses will apply or not apply based on the individuals definition of "sex".

SweetLissa