?Lesbianism?

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

If this has been debated before I can't seem to find it.

Where does it specifically state in scripture that a woman cannot lay with another woman as she does a man?

 

[Weddy]

If this has been debated before I can't seem to find it.

Where does it specifically state in scripture that a woman cannot lay with another woman as she does a man?

Romans 1:26-27: "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: 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 recompense of their error which was meet."

The bible says homosexuality is an abomination. In the verse where it says, "even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature", it then says "and likewise also" pertaining to the homosexual actions of men. In other words, the lust and actions that the men were having with other men were the same unnatural sexual actions (in like manner) as the lust and actions that the women were having with women.

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

Romans 1:26-27: "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: 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 recompense of their error which was meet."

The bible says homosexuality is an abomination. In the verse where it says, "even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature", it then says "and likewise also" pertaining to the homosexual actions of men. In other words, the lust and actions that the men were having with other men were the same unnatural sexual actions (in like manner) as the lust and actions that the women were having with women.

I still don't see it. I mean it says against nature and one might think this is to do about beastiality. The "likewise also" can and does only pertain to the other abomination that the men commited.


Anything else?

 

[Mister Emu]

I still don't see it. I mean it says against nature and one might think this is to do about beastiality.

If it left it at leaving the natural order, I may agree... but it didn't. The women's unnatural affection were like the men's... that is, for the same sex.

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

If it left it at leaving the natural order, I may agree... but it didn't. The women's unnatural affection were like the men's... that is, for the same sex.

Nice opinion but I still don't buy into it.

Anything else?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I agree with Berichiah, it is possible here that Romans is not referring to female homosexual acts, though clearly speaking of male homosexual acts.

What if Paul means by "change of the natural use" that women are having sexual relations that do not involve vaginal intercourse (ie. anal, oral,) or any type of sexual relations which involve them being more active than passive?

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Since it's obviously talking about males lying with males, why would the thing about women abandoning the natural use of women in the same verse be talking about something different? That makes no sense whatsoever. Nice try, though.

Secondly, homosexuality is defined by Princeton WordNet as "a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex" and the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality in several places (if you want specific verses, I would be happy to provide them), so if this is supposed to be the "Bible only says men can't lie with men, but never specifies on women" then you can just stop here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Secondly, homosexuality is defined by Princeton WordNet as "a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex" and the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality in several places (if you want specific verses, I would be happy to provide them), so if this is supposed to be the "Bible only says men can't lie with men, but never specifies on women" then you can just stop here.

IIRC, Greek grammar differentiates between between male and female nouns. If you go back to the original text of the Epistles, you'll likely find that the words that are translated into English as "homosexuals" or "homosexual offenders" refer to only one gender.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

IIRC, Greek grammar differentiates between between male and female nouns. If you go back to the original text of the Epistles, you'll likely find that the words that are translated into English as "homosexuals" or "homosexual offenders" refer to only one gender.

Hmm, I never knew that. However, I still don't understand why a single verse would be talking about two different types of sin. That doesn't make sense. Even in the Old Testament when God was talking about different kinds of sexual immorality, they were given seperate verses. For example, bestiality and incest were never talked about in the same verse to my knowledge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmm, I never knew that. However, I still don't understand why a single verse would be talking about two different types of sin.

Why not?

Just down the page from what we're talking about, Romans 1:29 describes six different types of sin by my count in a single verse (envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice and gossiping), and that's not even including the umbrella statement "every kind of wickedness".

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Well, it all depends what Paul has in mind when he is talking about "nature". From the little I do know about Greek, I understand that Paul's condemnation of sexually deviant behavior is reliant on classifications of passivity and aggression. I have, before, heard it suggested that this passage in Romans may not necessarily have female homosexuality in mind, but rather female sexual acts that contradict what Paul means by the natural order of sex.

Although to say he is speaking about female to female relations is fairly plausible. Perhaps an expert in Greek can let us know if we are missing any nuances.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Although to say he is speaking about female to female relations is fairly plausible. Perhaps an expert in Greek can let us know if we are missing any nuances.

Angellous would be the person to talk to about that.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Why not?

Just down the page from what we're talking about, Romans 1:29 describes six different types of sin by my count in a single verse (envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice and gossiping), and that's not even including the umbrella statement "every kind of wickedness".

Yes, however, it is obvious that those are seperate sins. We're talking about consecutive verses (yes, I did just notice it's not actually a single verse, so nevermind) that are both talking about exchanging the natural use of the opposite sex for something immoral. It specifies with the men, exchanging the natural use of women and lying with each other. If the first verse (concerning the women) was talking about something different, like bestiality, don't you think it would specifiy? Instead of continuing in the very next verse and saying LIKEWISE, men did the same?

I think the word likewise in these verses is key. If they were talking about two different things, why would it say "likewise...men burned in lust for each other"?

 

[Autodidact]

If this has been debated before I can't seem to find it.

Where does it specifically state in scripture that a woman cannot lay with another woman as she does a man?

It doesn't. It is never mentioned in the Tanakh, and only related as a story or consequence in Romans. It is not prohibited anywhere in the Bible.

 

[Autodidact]

If it left it at leaving the natural order, I may agree... but it didn't. The women's unnatural affection were like the men's... that is, for the same sex.

Probably, but it's a consequence, not a prohibition. It's not prohibited, which is what the OP is looking for. Also the reason it's a negative consequence is that it's unnatural for them, because they were heterosexual.

 

[Autodidact]

Since it's obviously talking about males lying with males, why would the thing about women abandoning the natural use of women in the same verse be talking about something different? That makes no sense whatsoever. Nice try, though.

Secondly, homosexuality is defined by Princeton WordNet as "a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex" and the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality in several places (if you want specific verses, I would be happy to provide them), so if this is supposed to be the "Bible only says men can't lie with men, but never specifies on women" then you can just stop here.

The word "homosexual" does not appear anywhere in Koine Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic in the Bible. Think about it, Lindsey--the Bible was not written in English. Nor does any word appropriately translated as "homosexual," rather, words that mean effeminate man. The verses in Leviticus (which every Christian disregards in any case) are clearly and unequivocally addressed only to men. Even when Paul is railing against it, he uses words that mean effeminate man, or passive partner in gay male sex, not words that apply to women at all.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, it all depends what Paul has in mind when he is talking about "nature". From the little I do know about Greek, I understand that Paul's condemnation of sexually deviant behavior is reliant on classifications of passivity and aggression. I have, before, heard it suggested that this passage in Romans may not necessarily have female homosexuality in mind, but rather female sexual acts that contradict what Paul means by the natural order of sex.

Although to say he is speaking about female to female relations is fairly plausible. Perhaps an expert in Greek can let us know if we are missing any nuances.

That's what the experts tell me, Jordan. Paul is condemning men taking a feminine role. There's simply no way to read that as applying to women. Unless someone wants to make the ridiculous argument that the Bible preaches gender equality.

 

[ChristineES]

You can "read into it" but it isn't there, as far as I can tell, blatantly.

 

[Autodidact]

Unlike, say, divorce, which is clearly prohibited, and also frequently practiced--by those same hypocritical Christians who condemn lesbianism, which is not prohibited. Interesting, no?

 

[Smoke]

Where does it specifically state in scripture that a woman cannot lay with another woman as she does a man?

Nowhere.

The bible says homosexuality is an abomination.

No, it doesn't. The word doesn't appear in the Bible -- though it does appear in some of the more tendentious translations.

In the verse where it says, "even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature", it then says "and likewise also" pertaining to the homosexual actions of men. In other words, the lust and actions that the men were having with other men were the same unnatural sexual actions (in like manner) as the lust and actions that the women were having with women.

If it left it at leaving the natural order, I may agree... but it didn't. The women's unnatural affection were like the men's... that is, for the same sex.

What if Paul means by "change of the natural use" that women are having sexual relations that do not involve vaginal intercourse (ie. anal, oral,) or any type of sexual relations which involve them being more active than passive?

I can't think of any compelling reason why that couldn't just as well be referring to women practicing oral and/or anal sex with men. It certainly doesn't seem to refer explicitly to lesbianism. Even if it did, it's not a prohibition; it's just a comment.

Secondly, homosexuality is defined by Princeton WordNet as "a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex" and the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality in several places (if you want specific verses, I would be happy to provide them), so if this is supposed to be the "Bible only says men can't lie with men, but never specifies on women" then you can just stop here.

The Bible nowhere condemns homosexual attraction, and the only homosexual acts explicitly forbidden are those between men.