Women with women - 'Say what?'

[DrRay777]

Okay, I need some help. I have now read at least two posts, one from this site and one from another polygyny site in which the concept of sexual desire between women is mentioned. I need some clarity on this issue as I confess I am ignorant, especially when it comes to the polygyny relationship. I do not believe that a lesbian relationship, (i.e., women with women in lieu of the normal relationship between men and women within a marriage) is acceptable. However, I know nothing about what God finds acceptable within the polygyny relationship, or even what to call it. Please help me understand this, as I find nothing specific in the Bible regarding the matter. I usually teach the principle that if the Bible is silent on an issue, then we whould be as well. For example many people, including church leaders came against the marriage between myself and my current wife since there is a significant age disparity. It went so far as to force us to change venue for the wedding because there were threats of bombing the church that we were originally set to be married in. Because of this threat, late in the game the pastor asked us to have the ceremony elsewhere. The bomb threats came from a pastor, not only that but it was someone whom I dearly loved; someone who had helped raise me up spiritually! :shock: As far as I know, the Bible is silent on age difference between husband and wife. It was God who told me to marry this girl or it never would have come about, because I did not really even know her when He spoke to me about it and we never even went on a date before we got married! In a few months we will be celebrating six years of wonderful marriage.

Thanks for your help in this matter.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray

 

[Doc]

Dr. Ray,

I appreciate your post. Even within the plural marriage community there is a wide range of opinion on this topic. The problem is one you adressed: the silence of Scripture. For most of us, we leave it as a matter of conscience with individual families; to each his own. However, I would like to point out to you that acceptance of plural marriage alone is often enough of a burden or challenge just by itself, without the added complications of an additional sexual dynamic that is generally not accepted in traditional Christianity.

I know that this really isnt an answer, but this is one of those gray areas we tend to avoid, because there is no clear cut answer. We do, however, have definite Scriptural evidence, historical tradition, and practical application of plural marriage. I think wisdom tells us to focus on the things we can defend, and avoid those things we can't.

In His Grip,

 

[rusty_armor]

When I first started looking into the prospect of adding another wife to my family, I was curious over an inexhaustible range of issues, the marriage bed being one of those. In the early days of the internet, there were a few poly sites, but this was one verboten issue, and the one I needed the most guidance with. So I approach this topic with almost as much trepidation as I did crossing a open minefield aeons ago in a far off land.

In my family, I have taken a “management by exceptions” approach, and have pretty much let the spouses set the bounds. As a family, we are openly affectionate with each other, and in evenings in front of the television or just enjoying the sunset, we often sit together. But if things seem to progress beyond a certain point, one spouse will excuse herself.

I think the boundaries are a little like Justice Joseph Potters definition of pornography: “I don’t know what pornography is, but I know it when I see it!”. I think I would know when that boundary was crossed, and I think my spouses would know too.

The time may come when one wife’s excusing herself may not be practical. I am not sure what we will do in that instance. There is only one bed in our van, for example, and so it could happen. I have heard mention of sacred sex in some online venues. I’ll walk very circumspectfully around that thorny bush, thank you. If it occurs, it occurs. I’ll not seek it out.

 

[nathan]

Just a warning: We haven't yet decided what to do with this thread. It may be locked at some point, or deleted.
If you post, don't be surprised to find it "disappeared" . And before you post, remember that BiblicalFamilies' purpose for the public forums is to be a support to families AND a witness to those studying these issues for themselves - not a "free for all" where we discuss anything and everything. Make friends with our members, at a retreat or online, and discuss anything you want with them by email or phone. But remember our "public witness" in the forums. Thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

I do not believe that a lesbian relationship, (i.e., women with women in lieu of the normal relationship between men and women within a marriage) is acceptable. However, I know nothing about what God finds acceptable within the polygyny relationship, or even what to call it. Please help me understand this, as I find nothing specific in the Bible regarding the matter.

I think you've got a good grip on the issue already. Scripture is silent on the subject of women with women, very likely because of polygynous marriages. In cases where Scripture is silent, I tend to avoid debates related to opinions and feelings (unless someone is trying to condemn another on the basis of "sin", at which point I will jump to their defense). Sin is defined in God's Word and is defined quite clearly. We do not require special permission to do something that God did not specifically prohibit while prohibiting a series of other relationships in the same area.

many people, including church leaders came against the marriage between myself and my current wife since there is a significant age disparity.

Same thing here as well. Scripture only speaks of men and women, which are defined at the age of entering puberty and capable of reproduction. When most believers learn that Mary was 13 when betrothed (14 when she had Jesus) and that Joseph was somewhere in his late 40's or early 50's, they freak out because they are used to judging based on a cultural understanding of things. If my perverse thinking causes me to see them as "a lecherous, dirty old man" and "a nubile lolita gold-digger", I seriously need to reevaluate my own preconceived values.

Love in Him,
David

 

[rusty_armor]

Just a warning: We haven't yet decided what to do with this thread. It may be locked at some point, or deleted.

Apparently I failed to walk around that thorny bush circumspectfully enough!

My apologies.

~ rusty

 

[Anonymous]

Just a warning: We haven't yet decided what to do with this thread. It may be locked at some point, or deleted...BiblicalFamilies' purpose for the public forums is to be a support to families AND a witness to those studying these issues for themselves

Nathan,

I certainly understand your concerns and I share them to a certain degree. But here's the statement I read that grabs my heart:

"In the early days of the internet, there were a few poly sites, but this was one verboten issue, and the one I needed the most guidance with."

As I'm not directly affiliated with this site's administration, I'm less concerned with those ogling the forums looking for interesting tidbits and more concerned with helping to address actual real-world problems that some of us find ourselves facing, even if they may be considered taboo to discuss. Censor specifics if need be, but I believe the question and the concern are obvious, practical and legitimate.

Love in Him,
David

 

[DrRay777]

I repent if I overstepped any boundary in either asking this question or if there was error in the way I asked it. I was trying to express my shock, (and the shock of my wife and the man who studies with me when we read the post) without offending. Perhaps I failed, so I apologize. I certainly submit to your authority if you need to delete the thread since I know about persecution and wish not to add any fuel to the fire, so to speak, and will not be offended. I would only ask that if anyone has anything to say about it that you feel would help to enlighten us further after the thread is removed, I would ask you to send me a private message, since as a teacher of the Word I need to have clarity as much as possible in these controversial areas.

I want you all to know that I really appreciate this site and all those who have responded to my questions, as it has already taught me much that I did not know even on common topics such the concept of marriage in general. I would be loath to do anything to undermine the great work that I believe this site is doing to propagate the true Word of God by sailing in uncharted and dangerous spiritual waters. I believe the devil is furious over this site and the people who righteously use it. I do not want to give him an inch of room to move.

Back to the subject at hand... I did inquire of the Lord on this issue and I believe that He showed me it is a non-issue. As a confirmation of this Word I also believe the other question I had in my mind for years now, which I could not explain even as a physician, is why there was no effect or counterpart of HIV/AIDS in the lesbian population at large. Of course taking into account the belief that I have that sickness is punishment from God for disorder and/or sin. Now living in South Africa and seeing first hand what devastation this dread disease is doing here because of the sexual immorality of gay and heterosexual fornication that appears to be as common as bread, (maybe more common God only knows) I could not previously understand why the lesbian population did not suffer a similar fate. Perhaps this is part of the answer that I seek.

In any case, thanks again for all your time and insight.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray

 

[Anonymous]

Check out this info for an alternative view on AIDS/HIV :

http://whatifeverything.com/whatif/index.html

http://www.aliveandwell.org/


I don't believe that every instance of disease is a punishment for sin. I am not sure if that is what you meant or just meaning that sin (original sin in particular) was the cause of disease in general in the world. I work in the alternative health world and am not very happy with western medicine and what it has to offer me and my family in general. Just my thoughts.

My thought on the whole gay thing which some of it is dealt with in book link above is that Gay men engage in more dangerous destructive behavior, not only sexual (obvious let's keep it PG!) but their night life,drug use,self destructive tendencies etc. that predispose them to MANY diseases and early death. Some other groups of people have a simialr profile, although hard pressed to find another such specific group that is so very suicidal as these guys. Lesbians have their own unique health issues (high and early breast and cervical cancer rates, alchoholism etc.) some of these stem from childlessness (nuns also have high breast cancer rate but not as high as lesbians, not as much beer perhaps!) and similar but not as horrible lifestyle as gay men. People who abuse themsleves so are bound to have a VERY low immune system in general. The "gay" lifestyle automatically predisposes you to all this. I'm not talking about the gay lifestyle on the six o clock news where they are a happy couple been living together for 30 years etc. (although they don't tend to live as long either). Im talking about the lifestyle that majority of gay men live. Of course just calling yourself Gay and being into guys doesn't automatically give you aids!

 

[Tlaloc]

It may well have been my intro post to which Doc Ray is referring too, as it mentions this and I linked it to him last I was on. Anyway, this topic is pertinent to me, and I believe it can be discussed without being lewd as well. I don't personally think it is any more out of line than my thread concerning general homosexuality, but if the admins think it is, or people cross lines, then of course it should be gone.

To my understanding (Though I have lost my citations as the sites are down) lesbianism was forbidden post Tanak but before New Testiment by Rabiattic teaching. The reason cited was that it was 'as was done in Egypt'. I of course disagree, of course Egypt may have had such relations, but they also had hetero ones. Egyptians having done this is not reason enough for the prohibition, the scripture outlined what was sexually wrong and omitted this.

Either way, the rule was established between the testaments, and Christians rolled with it eventually. Perhaps its easier to lump men and women together, goodness knows so many people are against us for admitting polygyny and not polyandry.

What I'm surprised that no one has pointed out is that new testament scripture is not silent concerning women with women. At least, not exactly,

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:

Any way I slice this its talking about women being with women. But also, any honest reading places it as being specifically about women with women and no man. Change here is specifically exchange, give up one entirely for the other. Within the confines of a natural marriage it is not a sign of reprobation. Within marriage I believe anything goes, and there is a deeper meaning to my view than that simply of what my wife desires.

In the context Ray asked I agree it is a non issue, but I think we need to be vigilant not to endorse outright lesbianism, though it isnt the same as male homosexuality and I do not know by my own reason specifically why we should not.

Ray, I think you and I have seen things in a similar way when reviewing HIV\AIDS data concerning homosexuality. The Catholic medical board strived to lump lesbianism and male homosexuality in a study one time. There where no less than 4 pages of statistics outlining diseases peculiar to male homosexuality and numerous things that are unique to the action and not simply STD's anyone could get. When they got to lesbianism they gave a short blurb about STI's, citing that they transmitted more readily amongst them, but they declined to say which STI's, which I though unusual. My guess is that they are talking about Yeast Infections, as they would by their nature transmit at a huge rate in such a circumstance, but are relatively trivial and thus would only hurt their case if it was mentioned.

I should note, that my wife's lesbian disposition is what started my study of polygamy in earnest in the first place. She would give it up at first proof it was wrong (she would, and had, and was prepared to continue too) but my study vindicated her rather than condemned her. So here we stand.

Good topic, thanks for brining it up, I would like to know if it was my post that surprised you or if it was another, Blessings

Jair

 

[Doc]

Jair,

Regarding Romans 1:26, there is another view. I have read several commentaries and word studies that relate to this implying women were avoiding pregancy or bearing children (the natural use of the woman's body). I can see this as an equally adequate interpretation. It also speaks to today's society, where we put off having children, or even worse, abort the unborn, for the sake of modern pleasure and convenience.

Since there is a division of opinion on this verse, and since this seems to be the only NT reference to the topic we are speaking of, I maintain that the Scripture is silent on this subject...but that is my opinion only.

Once again, I would encourage each one who considers the implications of this topic to the larger issue of plural marriage, that you keep in mind larger wars are lost over smaller battles. I can defend from theological, societal, and cultural viewpoints the legitimacy of Christian Plural Marriage. I cannot do the same for this topic.

I would also ask you to keep in mind 2 Corinthians 3:17-"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Also 1 John 1:7 -"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." And also John 16:13 -"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come." These verses tell me that if I am living in Christ, and reflecting His nature, then those things that the Scripture are silent on, He will guide me by His Spirit into truth.

Blessings to all!

Doc

 

[Mark C]

I would also ask you to keep in mind 2 Corinthians 3:17-"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Also 1 John 1:7 -"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." And also John 16:13 -"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come." These verses tell me that if I am living in Christ, and reflecting His nature, then those things that the Scripture are silent on, He will guide me by His Spirit into truth.

Excellent, Doc. I concur with your reasoning, and your understanding. I have had no witness myself in Scripture to believe otherwise.

I would also add one other point for consideration.

There has, thankfully, been much "iron sharpening iron" discussion on this forum on other issues of what it means to be obedient to the commandments of God - from marriage, divorce, keeping His Sabbaths, and health to circumcision and foods. In almost every one of those cases there is far more guidance, and usually more than one witness, and yet there can still be difference of opinion in good faith. Perhaps, as all of us grow in His knowledge and understanding, some of our concepts will change.

But I contend that whether within an ecclesia, or a nation, the ultimate authority for such decisions within a house are the responsibility of the head of that house, who is in turn directly responsible to the True Head of that House. Let the husband be guided by our Savior, in obedience to the Word, as he is individually led.


Blessings in Him,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

What I'm surprised that no one has pointed out is that new testament scripture is not silent concerning women with women. At least, not exactly,

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:

Any way I slice this its talking about women being with women.

Here's a comprehensive study on Rom. 1:26 that may be of some help in your analysis: http://www.righteouswarriors.com/contro ... icle8.html

There is no direct reference to "women with women" as there is to "men with men", yet many believers have been taught that this single verse condemns female-female sexual relations. The women exchanged natural sexual intercourse for an unnatural sexual intercourse, while the men abandoned sexual relations with women altogether and lusted after one another instead. This distinction is important because it says that while the women "exchanged" ('metallasso', Strong's #3337) natural intercourse for unnatural intercourse, the men "left" ('aphiemi', Strong's #863) sex with women for men.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) interpreted Romans 1:26 to refer to common heterosexual practices, especially anal intercourse. After quoting Romans 1:26-27, Clement comments: "Yet nature has not caused even the most lewd beasts to have intercourse [mount] in the excrement passageway" and then goes on to condemn "male penetration, barren seed-sowing, anal intercourse [literally "rear bedding"] and unsuitable androgynous coming together" (Paed 2.10.86-87, translated by Miller 1997b; cf. Brooten 320-338).

Anastasios, another early Christian writer, cited in a marginal note to Clement, agrees with Clement that Romans 1:26 does not speak of female-female relations: "Clearly they [the females of Romans 1:26] do not go into one another [fem.] but rather offer themselves to men" (Brooten 1996:337-38; Miller 1997b). Even Augustine (354-430 A.D.) understood Romans 1:26 to refer to certain male-female practices (probably anal intercourse to prevent conception) as "unnatural" (Brooten 353; Miller 1995; 1997ab).

The cases of Clement and Augustine are especially remarkable, since both are clearly on record as opposing female-female eroticism. Yet they did not allow their conviction to distort their interpretation of Romans 1:26, as commonly happens with modern interpreters. The important point to make here is that both early believers and informed modern scholars interpret Romans 1:26 as referring to unnatural male-female practices. Given the complete Scriptural silence on female-female relations throughout Israel's entire history (not a word in the Torah's 613 commands against them), an unprecedented and unique condemnation of all female-female relations cannot be elicited from Paul's sermon illustration.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Tlaloc]

I had heard the view presented by Doc elsewhere but dismissed it given the heading to the section is gave them up to vile affections, which is elsewhere lust and in every way talking about unacceptable sex. I would have asked Doc to elaborate, but DJ already did. I was before unfamiliar with that portion of the work of Clement, and totally unfamiliar with Anistosis.

I was familiar with the subtleties of difference between left and exchange, and it was one of the bedrocks of my arguments when I admitted the more unfavourable interpretation. Of course the interpretation presented here by Doc is much more favourable to my position, and I can see it to be viable in the context of the work of Clement. Thank you all.


What I find very interesting though, is that Doc's position solidifies my misgivings about pure f\f relationships, rather than alleviating them. Given I cannot really endorse the use of sperm banks as a good idea, purely lesbian partnerships put off normal child bearing as well. I could easily admit even two women who where together looking for the right husband together, but if they had no interest at all in men I don't think I could back them.

That delves into opinion and extensions of logic, but I would be pleased to hear thoughts on that topic as well.

I admit I was wrong about Romans, but am still glad I brought it up as it does have a bearing on the topic because of how people view the passage.


As for implications and my rare attempt at metaphysical delving, I think it would serve us well if the churches thought of themselves as the 10 brides. I can scarcely call us one unified church, each congregation has their own goals and personalities. Obviously in the context of polygyny its a call that we need to work together for our common Lord. We should be able to work as closely with other churches as we are able to care for them, and be able to freely take communion with them (as many churches have restrictions on this).

Socially, it has the potential to divide support for homosexuality in general. It would take a lot, but gay men alone can muster very little sympathy. One way or another its faces like Ellen DeGeneres that provide big pushes. Mixing the lie of male homosexuality with the truth of female homosexuality is a huge advantage to the male homosexuals. It would take a lot to separate these things in peoples minds, but if they where approached as two different things it would be an advantage.

 

[Anonymous]

Socially, it has the potential to divide support for homosexuality in general. It would take a lot, but gay men alone can muster very little sympathy. One way or another its faces like Ellen DeGeneres that provide big pushes. Mixing the lie of male homosexuality with the truth of female homosexuality is a huge advantage to the male homosexuals. It would take a lot to separate these things in peoples minds, but if they where approached as two different things it would be an advantage.

Well, I'm going to step out of what I can definitively prove from Scripture and offer some "opinion" here. Despite the fact that Scripture is silent on female-female intimacy, I do believe that exclusive "lesbianism" (I don't know what else to call it) as opposed to female intimacy within polygynous marriage ("Menage a Trois?" Again, don't know what else to call it) is a different case entirely. I do believe there are other passages in Scripture that teach of men being masculine and women being feminine and not to dress in the opposing sex's clothes, etc.

My personal feeling is that anything that causes a woman to behave in the manner of a man is wrong. Women who retain their femininity in polygynous marriage are nothing like...gee, I just know this is going to get censored by the powers that be. Feel free to substitute words or concepts here but I can only speak in English. There are "lipstick lesbians" and then there are "butch dy***" and anyone can tell one from the other. They are as opposite as love and hate. It is possible there is such an increase in lesbianism today precisely because there is a shortage of Godly men who have bothered to study the differences between males and females. Using modern terms, I would agree that exclusive lesbianism (to the exclusion of desiring the male) is problematic, but I can't go so far as to call it sinful, since God chose to remain silent on the subject. Polygynous marriage arrangements are the most likely reason, since men are more visual-oriented and women are more relationship-oriented. I do know that a woman can have sensual (not necessarily sexual) feelings for a close female friend or sister wife or whatever and fully retain her femininity, but I do not see men being able to retain their masculinity when engaging in sodomy. I have to keep this PG-ish so I can't elaborate. Is anyone understanding what I'm saying here? Both men and women I've spoken with intuitively understand the distinction.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Tlaloc]

Yeah, we suffer from lack of terms in this discussion. Its the same way with discussing supernatural things, things are hard to describe because history has so oppressed detailed discussion that there are no words for it.

To be clear I have no problem with my wives intimacy without me in any given instance, Menage a Trois strictly speaking is not necessary, though I think you meant the same thing I am saying, but we lack words to communicate effectively. I can't call exclusive lesbianism sin without being a hypocrite, though I agree that we should tread lightly with endorsing it. The word you used after butch is most likely to be offensives, so I'll shorten it to butches in attempt to toe the line we may already have crossed here. I quite agree that a woman can be with a woman without losing her femininity, it seems to be only with the lack of a man that a butch tends to (thought not always) arise. In some ways I think a woman can become more feminine with female closeness, closeness seems to come much more naturally to them. Anndrea was certainly always feminine, even when she was unsure weather could ever be with a man or not. Its just another way male and female homosexuality are totally distinct.

"It is possible there is such an increase in lesbianism today precisely because there is a shortage of Godly men who have bothered to study the differences between males and females"

I hope this is true, it may well be. Polygamy could have such a positive effect on culture if it was properly understood. More importantly it could give the Church such a boost.


Sisterwives.Yuku, BiblicalFamilies official go to board for over the edge topics, actually had a post that is also very pertinent to the topic of FF intimacy in polygamy.

http://sisterwives.yuku.com/topic/1897/ ... ology.html

It relates to the hormone oxytocin in family bonding and poly family jealousy. It is related, but note that oxytocin may come from many levels of non sexual intimacy as well. I will stand firmly by that wives should be intimate, but being sexual is totally unnecessary. Its an option for those who want to take it.

 

[Anonymous]

The word you used after butch is most likely to be offensives, so I'll shorten it to butches

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. As I've checked, the website dictionary.com identifies this word as "Disparaging and Offensive" so I have self-censored it out of respect for anyone that might otherwise take offense. I had never understood the term in a derogatory way but I'm also not up on all the latest slang terms. Iron sharpening iron.

To be clear I have no problem with my wives intimacy without me in any given instance, Menage a Trois strictly speaking is not necessary, though I think you meant the same thing I am saying, but we lack words to communicate effectively. I can't call exclusive lesbianism sin without being a hypocrite, though I agree that we should tread lightly with endorsing it.

Yeah, I confess I completely forgot about intimacy between wives occurring without the husband present. Not being in such a situation myself, I hadn't given that much thought. I believe we are saying the same thing, but I doubt that "lesbianism" is the correct term for a female who feels a connection to another female, unless it precludes her desire for a male. In other words, if the natural function of the woman is somehow impeded by her desire for female companionship, I would say something is amiss (though not sinful). I would say the same of the eunuch. It's not sinful, but certainly something is lacking. But to flip this 180, I don't see two females capable of having "sex" in any Biblical context anyway. They cannot become "one flesh" and an elaborate form of kissing is still not sex.

You know, if we'd had this conversation fifteen years ago, I'd have made a strong argument against any form of female-female erotica, but that's only because I only knew what the commentators had written and what I'd heard in church all my life. What was good for the goose was good for the gander. It simply wasn't a subject worthy of serious investigation, or so I thought. But if polygynous marriages are to be entered into by true followers of Messiah, we're going to have to take up the challenges of addressing specifics like these with our brothers and sisters.

Love in Him,
David

 

[DaPastor]

Hello,

First of all, it is not my desire to cause a war, but to get all of us to think more analytically concerning Biblical subjects. I love everyone that comes here. Below is not organized in the best way, but are thoughts I had when reading the other posts. I wish I had time to deal with this indepth. Since I don't, let us say that there are some overriding hermeneutics that needs to be expressed here:

1. Men were made for women (Gen. 1-3). God designed the body parts to fit naturally.
2. There isn't any evidence that this natural sexuality was ever changed by any further revelation.
3. The preponderance of Scriptural evidence suggests that anything outside the established norm of creation is not encouraged except for polygyny.
4. Being fruitful and multiplying is one of the major reasons for the sexual compatibility, not mere sexual pleasure.
5. The preponderance of Scriptural and biological evidence supports that the sexual act is designed for those in Covenant Marriage. The women are not married to each other. They are married to the husband. To break it down in monogamous terms for purpose of clear delineation: When a man marries a women, they are to enjoy each other sexually. They are in Covenant Union. No one else is to violate that covenat union. If a brother marries another woman. They are to enjoy each other sexually. These are two separate unions. If these women are sexually involved, this is taking the sexual act outside of the Covenant Marital union which "authorizes" the sexual act between each other, for the sexual act is a confirming of each covenant. Hence, the shedding of blood when the hymen is penetrated! Simply put, sister wives are not married to each other. There isn't any evidence authorizing Covenantal Sexual Acts between those who are not in Covenant Relationship.
6. The historical record surrounding what was taking place in the Roman empire at the time confirms the fact that this was referring to not only prostitution, but also acts of Lesbianism: Look up the Greek Lexiographic studies for the words τριζὰς ὄλισβον trizas olisbon, and ἑταιρίστης hetairistēs.

Some will attempt to say that there is not direct statement concerning women with women sexually or that the reference men to men does not refer back to the women in the verses in Romans. However, Paul is using nothing more than a common means of communicating in his day - parallelism. Parallelism does not require a word for word complete parallel for it to be 100% parallel. Proverbs is full of parallelism as well as the book of Psalms. If you read them carefully, you will understand exactly what I am saying.

it should be noted that extensive Word Studies must include how the individual words were used throughout the Romand Empire during the same period as well as the cognate languages being used at the time. This is how lexiographers come to their definition conclusions! It is quite brutal and by no means simplistic. This research is required by those who truly desire to bridge the cultural and historical gaps. Has anyone studied these folks, for example, to see how they used the Words in Romans 1?

1. Seneca Epis. 95
2. Martial Epis i. 90.
3. Tholuck on the State of the pagan World, in the Biblical Repository, vol. ii.
4. Lucian, Dial. Meretric. v.
5. Tertullian de Pallio.

In Seminary, my language professors would call those who used the Strong's Concondance for their final authority "low roaders" because people who use Strong's definitions forget to realize that this is one man's view of how these words are used - In this case, Mr Strong. There are many other good Greek concordances that must be looked at and compared in order to get a bigger picture of any given Word. Moreover, when doing an indepth Word Study, it must also include the Cognate Languages of the time. We should all be careful how we come to our final conclusions if we are merely basing those conclusions on a Strong's Only Bible Study.

It should also be noted that to read back into the clear meaning of the text to suggest that this is not referring primarily to Lesbian acts is quite frankly committing the Anachronistic Fallacy. In other words, this is an attempt to interpret our understanding of the Romans passage through the eyes of Lesbian acceptance of our day.

One other thought - Jesus considered the first five books of the Bible "the Law", and used Genesis in fact as a Law when He said that it taught that marriage was meant to last a lifetime. Using the same hermeneutics as Jesus, I would suggest that sexual acts outside of the normal Covenant Marriage is a firm principle found in Genesis!

 

[DrRay777]

I can see that I opened the flood gate on this one. It was your post Jair that I was referring to, just to answer your question on that. However, there was something on another site which I saw in the area as well. I believe that lesbianism is not right. I also now believe that if women are affectionate with one another within the polygyny relationship without crossing the line and interfering with or replacing the relationship between herself and her husband, it is probably not a problem. Even the men showed affection for one another, (though not in sexual way) in the bible, for example Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. Today, unless you are French, this would probably be frowned upon. However, I am half Lebanese and even the grown men in our family would greet with a kiss on the lips, though the modern men do not do it. When I grew up and stopped doing it I got rebuked by my older brother one time, so I started again. There was nothing sexual about it though. I believe that we need to tread carefully in this area, but I also believe that intimacy between men is not allowed. However, it may not be so much of a problem for women within the polygyny marriage.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray

 

[nathan]

I'd like to give Pastor Randy the (almost) last word here, so I'm locked this thread, and asking that the subject not pop up elsewhere either, at least for now.
Thanks, Nathan