Bible is Oddly silent on Lesbians

The Bible only makes mention of homosexual men. Not a mention of lesbians.

Does this make same sex female couples subject to a Holy marriage?

 

Ahaha...cannot wait to see the answer to this.

It probably wasn't mentioned in the Bible because it was really unheard of for women to be in a relationship back then especially considering women were 'property' for the most part during those times.

 

The Bible does mention lesbians.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Romans 1:26-27

 

Well it seems we have been corrected! Thanks for the Biblical quotes Cricket.

 

U really R an angry guy.

 

There were temple prostitutes both male and female. As for the property element of women....how do you explain the female 'judges' of Israel? The female heroes who acted on their own. The queens of Israel and Judah? Jezebel and Athaliah, who coincidentally were very wicked. You haven't read the bible about these women, you don't know ancient israel/judah history or the ancient history of the area.

 

Obviously. There have been slaves (both for labor and sex) of both genders and most if not all races at one time or another.

I believe Deborah is the only mentioned female judge in the Bible. Do you have historical records of others?

So a few women represent all women now?

I don't take the Bible as proof of anything either.

You can't deny that the majority of women in ancient times were considered property of their fathers and eventually their husbands. Woman could own property and other assets sometimes but the moment they married it became their husband's property.

 

I don't know that the temple prostititutes were slaves. Neither do you. they were like priests and priestesses.

 

So I take it you don't disagree with my whole post, just this bit?

 

Because I ask a question?

 

Aye. Very much appreciated.

 

It always amuses me that people would actually take that rubbish seriously.

 

Girls with crushes on other girls were never any threat to bully-boys insecure about their masculinity, so it's never been an issue. All this stuff is about human inadequacy, not 'religion', whatever that is.

 

The difference being that a good deal of the heterosexual male population fantasies about watching and being involved sexual with two women at the same time.

That's where the differing in opinion comes from.

 

sooooo god and mr jesus didnt see this coming?

 

Bottom line is it does mention lesbianism, the guy who started this thread doesn't sound like he's actually read the whole Bible, even though he makes numerous threads criticizing it.

 

do you guys believe in elves and unicorns?

 

No but I believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

 

Romans 1.26

 

If the answer is ....The anus is a exit not an entrance. Where does that leave the male in his sexual needs?...back to the Female (I suppose) mind you the same applies to the female also.
ie the anus is out of bounds to both sexes, so it would have to be back to the drawing board.!!!!!

 

I am surprised you even belief it after reading it.

 

We can also evaluate what's being said about lesbianism. The quotation from Romans doesn't treat it like something natural, but like a conscious choice made by an otherwise heterosexual woman. Now, since this is an old bit of writing describing very old cultures, we have to stop and think about what's being discussed here. Far as I know, men and women did in fact perform homosexual acts by choice rather than by nature. It was a part of old religious and cult practices, as I understand it. So, if that's what the writer of Romans meant to attack, then fine, but what does that have to do with modern gays and lesbians? It sounds like Christians who want to act in accordance with the implication of the message in this passage - namely, that choosing to engage in homosexual acts as a heterosexual is wrong - should avoid acting against their natural sexuality. So, what if someone is naturally homosexual? This passage does not address this. In fact, the Bible never addresses this.

 

contortionist

 

No, in fact it is spot on.

And even IF (I'm saying IF coz he isn't but just for the sake of the argument) he's a contortionist, I prefer that to a religious bully. Any day.

 

What are "modern gays and lesbians"? Post invention of homosexuality? Im an atheist but I doubt that embracing a label really effects the substance of sin.