• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

To avoid derailing another thread

So, if a wife is “intimate” with the other wife, is that adultery?
 
WifeOfHisYouth said:
So, if a wife is “intimate” with the other wife, is that adultery?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure not.
I'm quite sure that adultery comes from "adulteration" (ie mixing another man's seed with her husband's... in her), and a woman has nothing to adulterate another women with.

Edit; Sorry. It's not the woman being adulterated, but rather her husband's seed in her that's being adulterated..... and another women doesn't have anything to do that with.

Edit2; Sorry, It would seem to be both the woman and her man's seed.
 
Last edited:
Kevin said:
For those who want to say women don't have the equipment to lay with a woman in that manner as a man does so there's nothing wrong with it. Once again if she lust after the ability to do so she has done so in her heart and she can use other appendages or objects to represent a phallic when engaging in the act.
Click to expand...
If you put this ewwy fact (I cannot fathom why someone would pretend to be what they are not) together with the verse that says there is nothing new under the sun, it can throw a different light on the verse that says women are not supposed to wear what pertains to a man. :eek::cool: :confused:

Just for clarity, I look at this stuff as objectively as possible, and I have no personal agenda....as I have zero sexual interest in women. I just dont want to be guilty of adding to the word, or condemning others based on incorrect understanding.
 
eye4them said:
Edit; Sorry. It's not the woman being adulterated, but rather her husband's seed in her that's being adulterated......
Click to expand...
It’s been discussed on this site before, a woman has the DNA from all males that she received seed from.
Disturbingly adulterated.
 
@Kevin, I've made all the points I intend to make, and will stop there. Like you, I don't judge what goes on in another man's house. So I am completely ok with anybody interpreting this as completely forbidden and forbidding it in their family as a result. I would actually presume that most men who found this acceptable in some fashion would still forbid their wives from such fraternising outside the family, at least keeping it between the wives themselves and thus avoiding any headship implications (or the risk of spreading disease). At that point it just becomes a matter of what goes on in the bedroom, and scripture is silent on that except for forbidding sex during menstruation. I don't see any reason to class something that happens entirely within a man's marriage bed as an "orgy", but if someone else feels that term is appropriate they're welcome to apply it for themselves. Whether particular acts are edifying is a matter of opinion, and if we start down that road we could debate whether (between a husband and wife) oral sex is edifying, or all manner of other things on which scripture is also silent. That's not a debate I intend to have.

And I'm with @IshChayil on lesbianism - it's far from ideal, they should certainly be presented a better way, and I'm quite willing to be the man to provide it... ;)
 
Joleneakamama said:
Just for clarity, I look at this stuff as objectively as possible, and I have no personal agenda....as I have zero sexual interest in women. I just dont want to be guilty of adding to the word, or condemning others based on incorrect understanding.
Click to expand...
Ditto!
 
steve said:
It’s been discussed on this site before, a woman has the DNA from all males that she received seed from.
Disturbingly adulterated.
Click to expand...
You wouldnt happen to remember the name of the thread that is in.

I know a married couple who are of 2 different ethinthicies. They took DNA test and she has none of the DNA markers that he has.

I think It might be junk science and lump it it with the old beleif that if a pregnant woman has sex or is raped by a who did not impregnated her that some how the second man becomes the child's biological father.
 
Kevin said:
You wouldnt happen to remember the name of the thread that is in.

I know a married couple who are of 2 different ethinthicies. They took DNA test and she has none of the DNA markers that he has.

I think It might be junk science and lump it it with the old beleif that if a pregnant woman has sex or is raped by a who did not impregnated her that some how the second man becomes the child's biological father.
Click to expand...

I have to admit that I struggle with this idea too. I can see how it could be so but I'm just very disturbed by the idea.
 
FollowingHim said:
I've made all the points I intend to make, and will stop there. Like you, I don't judge what goes on in another man's house. So I am completely ok with anybody interpreting this as completely forbidden and forbidding it in their family as a result. I would actually presume that most men who found this acceptable in some fashion would still forbid their wives from such fraternising outside the family, at least keeping it between the wives themselves and thus avoiding any headship implications (or the risk of spreading disease). At that point it just becomes a matter of what goes on in the bedroom, and scripture is silent on that except for forbidding sex during menstruation. I don't see any reason to class something that happens entirely within a man's marriage bed as an "orgy", but if someone else feels that term is appropriate they're welcome to apply it for themselves. Whether particular acts are edifying is a matter of opinion, and if we start down that road we could debate whether (between a husband and wife) oral sex is edifying, or all manner of other things on which scripture is also silent. That's not a debate I intend to have.
Click to expand...

Good analysis of the OT portion of this. Now about the NT, it is worth remembering that Paul's letter was to a people steeped in Greco-Roman culture; from where we got our term lesbian (the Isle of Lesbos). Practices that did not occur in Ancient Hebrew society. There is a difference of kind between a man and his two wives sharing a bed and two women living in an exclusive relationship (all the more when one pretends to be a man). Exchanging the natural use.
 
That was quick.

In this study, we quantified male DNA in the human female brain as a marker for microchimerism of fetal origin (i.e. acquisition of male DNA by a woman while bearing a male fetus).
 
@Kevin Ive been busy as of late and came to this party well past midnight. I hate to pile on, but another member is coming up to bat against you.

I don't support exclusive lesbianism, but cant codify a sin where none is mentioned. All else is conjecture and filled with cultural implications.

Sorry bro.
 
Kevin said:
At that point it wasn't about the tradition but the inference you made that tradition was silent on the subject by saying:
↑
"I've never heard of anything from the talmud regarding lesbianism or bisexuality for females."↑
"Yes, I'm aware of the tradition that lesbianism started in Egypt."

I'm confused you never heard of anything from Talmud about it but you where aware of it.
Click to expand...
Well you shouldn't be too confused since you and I have even discussed the talmudic tradition of Egypt regarding lesbianism several months ago; (when we used to chat daily) so ... if you'll think about it surely you'll recall I knew about it. What are you thinking here when I wrote "I was thinking about you @Kevin when I didn't bring up the tradition about Egypt"? Since you read that before your post about confusion? Not too much to put 2 & 2 together there buddy are you mad at me ? Because it sure looks like you're inferring I'm lying. Is this because we disagree on bisexuality for females being undefined in scripture?
Take a breath. This inference is based on the zero value added to the discussion on knowing if I knew that talmudic tale or not. I'm not mad, just also now confused what's going on.

Since you're asking....:
Sometimes I type the wrong word, if you'll change the first sentence to say "I'm unaware of anything in the *bible* regarding lesbianism or bisexuality for females" that's what I meant.

When I speak about stuff in the bible I've read it enough times that I don't use phrases like "I never heard of xyz being in the bible". The 40k+ pages in the sea of talmud, however, often it's something I heard or didn't hear from a drash.
 
Last edited:
@IshChayil I'm not mad at you. In the greater scheme of things it doesn't matter. I'm just trying to find out everyone's stance on the subject because it sheds light on the stance they take on other things. I remember the conversation that is why I said I was confused. It was the same time we had the conversation about Samson and Solomon and how their lives are not ment to be a biblical model of personal lives.

IshChayil said:
Since you're asking....:
Sometimes I type the wrong word, if you'll change the first sentence to say "I'm unaware of anything in the *bible* regarding lesbianism or bisexuality for females" that's what I meant.
Click to expand...

That clears up a good chunk of it right there.
 
Last edited:
One point I am trying to estabish is in this case absence of a gender specific comand in the Tanahk means no sin and interpretation of the Gospels is seen as adding to the word yet on other threads absence of a gender specific comand in the Tanahk means sin and interpretation of the Gospels is seen as divining the true meaning of scripture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top