?Lesbianism?

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

Look guy’s, I really do not see it anywhere in any part of scripture where it implies that oral, and or, anal sex is prohibited between two women or a woman and a man. I also have noticed that it seems all here have drawn to the fact that all laws come from the so called OT and if we look at the verse that talks about a man with a man we see right below it………

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Yah was talking to man and told him not to lie down with another man but in the next verse Yah tells man not to lie with any beast and then goes on to say that a woman is not to lie down with a beast. But wait. If Yah is going to say this thing with a beast is bad for both a man and a woman so much so that it is mentioned for both then why is it that it is no where stated that it is wrong for a woman to lie down with another woman?

I see a beast being part of nature and this is what is meant in Romans when it speaks of “nature” because there is no law on lesbianism in the Torah.

 

[S-word]

Look guy’s, I really do not see it anywhere in any part of scripture where it implies that oral, and or, anal sex is prohibited between two women or a woman and a man. I also have noticed that it seems all here have drawn to the fact that all laws come from the so called OT and if we look at the verse that talks about a man with a man we see right below it………

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Yah was talking to man and told him not to lie down with another man but in the next verse Yah tells man not to lie with any beast and then goes on to say that a woman is not to lie down with a beast. But wait. If Yah is going to say this thing with a beast is bad for both a man and a woman so much so that it is mentioned for both then why is it that it is no where stated that it is wrong for a woman to lie down with another woman?

I see a beast being part of nature and this is what is meant in Romans when it speaks of “nature” because there is no law on lesbianism in the Torah.

The wonderful Omar Khayyam in referrence to the vessels of clay which were molded by the great Potterer, says,

After a momentary silence spake
Some Vessel of a more ungainly Make;
"They sneer at me for leaning all awry:
What! Did the Hand then of the Potter shake?"

I have two aunties who were casterated at the age of 12, one, whose spirit was laden with the guilt impossed upon her by the condemners of this world, commited suicide, the other who died in her early fifties, donated her body to science. God, who created them, must do what he must do, but I will never condemn any preson because of their sexual persuasion.

What! Out of sensless Nothing to provoke
A concious Something to resent the yoke
Of unpermitted Pleasure, under pain
Of Everlasting Penalties, if broke

What! from his helpless Creatures be repaid
Pure Gold for what he lent them dross-allay'd
Sue for a Debt he never did contract,
And cannot answer --Oh the sorry trade!

Oh Thou, who didst with pitfall and with Gin
Beset the Road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with Predestined Evil round
Enmesh, and then impute my Fall to Sin!....Omar Khayyam.

 

[anders]

Look guy’s, I really do not see it anywhere in any part of scripture where it implies that oral, and or, anal sex is prohibited between two women or a woman and a man. I also have noticed that it seems all here have drawn to the fact that all laws come from the so called OT and if we look at the verse that talks about a man with a man we see right below it………

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

I find only one possible way to interpret that verse: You shall have anal intercourse with women, but not with men.

What other way of lieing with women could be used between men? OK, I'll allow "69" being advocated for man/woman, but forbidden to men.

Regarding what's unnatural for women in the NT, I think that it equally well can refer to abominations like eating seafood. Another, serious, interpretation is that women shouldn't have sex with angels.

 

[S-word]

I find only one possible way to interpret that verse: You shall have anal intercourse with women, but not with men.

What other way of lieing with women could be used between men? OK, I'll allow "69" being advocated for man/woman, but forbidden to men.

Regarding what's unnatural for women in the NT, I think that it equally well can refer to abominations like eating seafood. Another, serious, interpretation is that women shouldn't have sex with angels.

Quite correct anders, what does it matter what two people out of love for each other do in the privacy of their own bedroom? the Old Testament speaks of a man who was stoned to death for picking up a few sticks on the Sabbath to cook himself a feed. Every one on this earth has done and are still doing, something that the black and white lettering of the law of God sees as deserving of death. So rather than worrying about someone elses sins perhaps they should be looking to their own, for all have sinned and all are deserving of death.

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

To all,

I'm not sure how you are taking this thread I started but it wasn't intended to be for or against anything. I myself could care less what a persons sexual persuasion might be. On the other hand, It is about a question I posed as to any scriptural proof of any sin that there might be if a woman was to lie with another woman. The question of man on man is not part of this thread other than to show in reflection on the OP.

I ask this of everybody that we please don’t turn this thread into anything other.

Thanks in advance,

Berachiah

 

[AK4]

I got this from Lesbianism in Jewish Law </head>

Although it starts quoting some stuff from the midrash that i dont follow i thought what listed below might help with the discussion

<H3>The Texts

Lesbianism is assumed by many modern authors to be implied in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20. The eighteenth chapter is introduced with a general prohibition against subscribing to the practices of Egypt and Canaan (Lev. 18:2-3):

I am the Lord your God. You shall not copy the practice of the land of Egypt where you dwell, or of the land of Canaan to which I am taking you; nor shall you follow their laws.​

The chapter continues with pronouncements against various sexual unions, especially with family members. A second set of prohibitions includes offering children to Molech, sexual union between males, and sexual union with animals. Leviticus 18:22 is the text prohibiting homosexuality:[13]

Do not lie with a male as one lies with a women; it is an abhorrence.​

Leviticus 20:13 specifies the punishment:

If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death -- their blood guilt is upon them.​

Without offering any support for his claims, Baruch Levine, in the Jewish Publication Society commentary to Leviticus, boldly assures the reader that "in due course, rabbinic interpretation added this prohibition [of lesbianism] as well [to homosexuality in this verse]."[14] It is rather on Lev.18:2-3 that criticism of lesbianism seems to be positioned. Most of the exegetical material on these verses tries to recover the reasons why Egypt and Canaan are addressed in this section, and the curious verse against following "their laws."

</H3>

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

I already see some problems as far as I can see………..

As AK4 posted previously from Lesbianism in Jewish Law……….

Lesbianism is assumed by many modern authors to be implied in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20.

I can’t accept assumptions especially from any modern perspective and unequivocally from anything implied. If it ain’t written then it ain’t so in my book. Can’t be going around guessing on matters such as these.

The eighteenth chapter is introduced with a general prohibition against subscribing to the practices of Egypt and Canaan (Lev. 18:2-3):
I am the Lord your God. You shall not copy the practice of the land of Egypt where you dwell, or of the land of Canaan to which I am taking you; nor shall you follow their laws.
The chapter continues with pronouncements against various sexual unions, especially with family members. A second set of prohibitions includes offering children to Molech, sexual union between males, and sexual union with animals. Leviticus 18:22 is the text prohibiting homosexuality:[13]
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a women; it is an abhorrence.
Leviticus 20:13 specifies the punishment:
If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death -- their blood guilt is upon them.

So is there some sort of proof that Yisrael didn’t have lesbianism prior to going into any other land? You mean to tell me that Mitzrim and Canaan had the patent on lesbianism?

I didn’t think so.

Without offering any support for his claims, Baruch Levine, in the Jewish Publication Society commentary to Leviticus, boldly assures the reader that "in due course, rabbinic interpretation added this prohibition [of lesbianism] as well [to homosexuality in this verse]."[14]It is rather on Lev.18:2-3 that criticism of lesbianism seems to be positioned. Most of the exegetical material on these verses tries to recover the reasons why Egypt and Canaan are addressed in this section, and the curious verse against following "their laws."

I don’t go by anyone’s private interpretation of scripture and rabbinic interpretation is no different. Just another man putting his own thoughts and feelings into something that is plainly not written.

We can all infer all of the entire scripture into being whatever we want it to be but it doesn’t make it so. What is so is what we have and what we have is plainly written.

Here you go. (this is not true) Chicken is an abomination. Well I say it is because it is not found in all of scripture. It is not named anywhere in the Torah as fowl that is clean to eat. I know that it isn’t named as an abomination but just as lesbianism is not mentioned as is deemed an abomination, so is chicken.

See what I mean?

I’m still waiting for proof………………

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

Wow. I'm simply amazed that there hasn't been as many reply's to this thread as has been. I really thought that there would have been some great finding or understanding and would set this straight once and for all but I guess there just isn't any real laws against women being with women through out the whole of scripture other than that which is dreamed up by man in his own logical thought processes as to what he thinks and feels.

 

[Mister Emu]

While I do believe that the verse in Romans is speaking about female homosexuality...

The Bible condemns all sexual relations outside of marriage... and there is only one type of marriage in the Church, between a male and a female...

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

While I do believe that the verse in Romans is speaking about female homosexuality...

The Bible condemns all sexual relations outside of marriage... and there is only one type of marriage in the Church, between a male and a female...

I disagree and have yet to be shown otherwise scripturally. Can you show scripture that upholds your claims? I am not into any private interpretations of scripture so I may need you to explain what you seem to see within any given verse that isn't just plainly stated.

 

[Autodidact]

While I do believe that the verse in Romans is speaking about female homosexuality...

The Bible condemns all sexual relations outside of marriage... and there is only one type of marriage in the Church, between a male and a female...

Where is the verse found that prohibits any other form of marriage?
So I gather you favor polygamy then?

 

[AK4]

Could the answer to this be the underlined part of verse 27

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]1:26 For this reason God R48 gave them over to degrading R49 passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, F18 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men R50 with men committing indecent F19 acts and receiving in their F20 own persons the due penalty of their error. [/FONT]

If in verse 26 this is talking of women doing animals only then it wouldnt be "in the same way also" of men with men committing indecent acts

I dont know just throwing that out there

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

Where is the verse found that prohibits any other form of marriage?

So I gather you favor polygamy then?

I am sure that where it says "thus shall a man leave his mother and father and take a wife and the two twain shall become one flesh" is where you will find that it was meant from the beginning that it be for a man and a woman and nothing else. But a man may have more than one wife. It isn't polygamy which just means anyone with multiple spouses but actually polygyny which is a man with multiple wives. I favor all things that are pleasing to Yah. If polygyny is something that is allowed by Yah then I do not oppose it. It is, however, something that should not be taken lightly and those involved need to be very mature in there faith and study of the true word of Yah.

We just have to understand that we just can't read what we think and feel into what is written in scripture. It isn’t up to anyone’s private interpretations. All the laws are plainly written in the Torah. The laws pertaining to what is simply called "fornication" which is the laws of sexual immorality are found in the Torah. Most, if not all, of which are in the book of Leviticus in the 20th chapter. No where is Lesbianism, nor Polygyny, found to be condemned.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree. So, for all you conservative Christian voters out there, take note. According to your Bible, lesbianism is permissible, as is polygamy. Vote accordingly.

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

Could the answer to this be the underlined part of verse 27

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]1:26 For this reason God R48 gave them over to degrading R49 passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, F18 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men R50 with men committing indecent F19 acts and receiving in their F20 own persons the due penalty of their error. [/FONT]

If in verse 26 this is talking of women doing animals only then it wouldnt be "in the same way also" of men with men committing indecent acts

I dont know just throwing that out there

The part of "and in the same way" is misleading at best. If we take it to other translations we will see it as "and likewise also” KJV. The Greek uses the word “Homoios” which means “similarly” “likewise, so”. The point I am trying to make is that this in no way means that it was the same exact way but just like the men giving up on the women and went for each other so did the women give up on the man to have sex with beast (That which is against nature) Bestiality is forbidden in Lev 18:23. Funny we have all these laws plainly written about who we can and cannot have sex with and even a law against that of sex with animals but no where is it plainly stated that a woman can’t get her groove on with another woman. J

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

I agree. So, for all you conservative Christian voters out there, take note. According to your Bible, lesbianism is permissible, as is polygamy. Vote accordingly.

Again "Polygamy" is not the correct word to use where it pertains to scripture. Polyandry is strictly forbidden. Polygyny on the otherhand is not. As far as christians are concerned, I doubt that they would acceptt such as they even have trouble accepting the Torah. They pick and choose what laws pertain to them as the circumstance arises.

 

[Ashley-Yin]

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?

Well im not even goin to bother reading the comments, im just gonna say this...

IT DOESNT MATTER ANYMORE!

THE BIBLE IS USELESS WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS LIKE SEXUALITY, GENDER ETC.

ANYONE WHO DISSAGREES REALLY DOSENT KNOW HOW IT FEELS TO BE FREE, ESPECIALLY IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE NOT HAPPY & CONTENT ENOUGH WITH THEIR LIFE SO FEEL THE NEED TO PREJUDICE OTHERS.

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

Well im not even goin to bother reading the comments, im just gonna say this...

IT DOESNT MATTER ANYMORE!

THE BIBLE IS USELESS WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS LIKE SEXUALITY, GENDER ETC.

ANYONE WHO DISSAGREES REALLY DOSENT KNOW HOW IT FEELS TO BE FREE, ESPECIALLY IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE NOT HAPPY & CONTENT ENOUGH WITH THEIR LIFE SO FEEL THE NEED TO PREJUDICE OTHERS.

Thanks for your comments as I am sure that for those who do not acccept scripture as the true word of Yah will be happy to hear it.

 

[rojse]

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?

And here I was, thinking this would be a discussion of the country Lesbos, and it's inhabitants.

Lesbians pick fight with gay women | The Australianhttp://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23630050-26040,00.html

 

[Berachiah Ben Yisrael]

And here I was, thinking this would be a discussion of the country Lesbos, and it's inhabitants.

Lesbians pick fight with gay women | The Australian

LOLOLOLOL

I saw that on the news and got a big kick out of it. Who would have imagined there would be such a place.