Incidentally, "benefit" derives from the latin "benefacere", "to do a service".

Since the so-called "benefits" I mentioned do not actually involve anyone (or the government) "doing a service", I did and do not consider them "benefits" and I don't see how it is anybody's business whether they exist or not.

Government recognising my contracts has nothing to do with receiving a service from government other than what government owes to all of us.

If that makes me a liar or illiterate, so be it.

But I still don't think that it is the government's business to agree or disagree with my selection of people who inherit from me, people who can speak for me, and people who have special rights to be my confidants.

 

My sentiments exactly.

 

Yes, I did stop to think about it being about doing something to an angel (rather than men). I mentioned that problem. And your comparison makes a lot of sense (Biblical angels are indeed a level above man since they are messengers from G-d).

And yes, I too think that it was a meteor shower that destroyed the cities.

 

Kudos for being honest about it!

Don't expect much condemnation from me, dude!

 

And don't you think your being gay has clouded your objectivity a bit? 

The men were male.  The angels were male.  The men of the town did not know they were angels.  The writer to the NT clarified things up a bit when he explained that Sodom and Gomorroh were destroyed because of sexual sins involving both homo and hetero sex outside of marriage.....nothing mentioned about it having to do with angels. 

Not more so than your being straight has clouded yours.

 

G-d decided to destroy the city before that event with the angels ever happened. Furthermore, if this is about G-d's reaction to the crime, the fact that they were angels is relevant, since G-d knew that they were.

Angels are not male. They really don't have a gender.

And whatever it was they men did to the angels, it would have been a crime if the angels had been women too. Rape (if that was what they were doing, the text doesn't actually say so) is wrong, regardless of whether it is homosexual rape or not.

 

Really?  You may want to revisit the scriptures.  Start with Genesis 18 with Abraham entertaining "three men" who turned out to be angels.

"The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day.  Abraham looked up and saw thee men standing nearby.......the men turned away and went toward Sodom." 

You're wrong Leauki.  Just admit it.  I know it's hard for you but you're not always right like you think you are.  Everywhere in scripture where angels are brought up it's with a male pronoun.   Gabe and Michael are the only two named angels and they were most certainly male. 

Agree.  I believe by looking at "all" the scriptures concerning this passage that both hetero and homo sex was being perverted in God's eyes.  And it's HIS opinion that matters, not our own. 

Like you said...God was already going to destroy the city so the angels were NOT relevant.  They were God's messengers delivering a judgment.  God already decided what he was going to do.  What these townsmen did was merely evidence of their perverted behavior and proving to us that God was right in his decision. 

 

 

Angels can look like men, but they are not male.

 

What pronoun should the Bible use? Hebrew doesn't have a neutral gender.

Consider this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sza9ZsP4u9U

The singer is obviously female but she uses the male forms of the verbs. Following your logic that would be evidence for her being a man. Following my logic it is evidence for her using a generic form of the verbs, meaning that not she herself "asks and prays" but that anyone might.

Incidentally, "gabriel" is Aramaic for "strongman of G-d". But I have never heard of angels mating or having a gender.

 

Which means we are back to the question of why G-d destroyed the city.

Your "evidence" for the reason being the city's homosexuality is now completely destroyed as the event you read as an example of homosexuality turns out not to have influenced G-d's decision after all.

 

How does accepting a civil union impact your life?  Hell how does accepting impact your life?  It doesn't.  What we are asking for here is that civil unions be allowed to file joint tax returns, transfer property easier, be present in the hospital room when another member of that union is ill, etc.  None of that will impact your life or force you to do anything.  However denying civil unions is impacting the lives of those who would benefit from them.

 

Unless Abraham checked under the robes how would he know if they were really men?  Why would Angels have any need to procreate?  If they have no need to procreate why would they need sexual organs of any kind?  Maybe "three men" was just the best description that Abraham could give to anyone who asked.  Just a thought.

And God is often referred to with the male pronoun but even you have admitted that he is neither male nor female if I recall correctly.  Do we have a genderless pronoun to refer to Angels or God other than it which is more to refer to an object not a being.

 

KFC POSTS:

This is a good answer in response to the question, but you know Leauki is a stickler when it comes to language and trying to prove his point and so he replied with:

 LEAUKI POSTS:

And this is true in the sense that Angels are purely spiritual beings who serve God in various capacities. Tobais 12:18 tells us that the primary function of angels is to do God's will. God's will has angels intervene in human affairs appearing to them in human bodily form..so while angels technically aren't male, Genesis identifies them as "men" and always appearing as male.

kfc posts# 230

So Abraham invited them to eat and after the meal, when they were about to leave, one of them said to Abraham that after a year he would return and that Sara, Abraham's wife would have a son. Then Abraham understood that the Lord God Himself, accompanied by angels, was his guest. He knew it becasue He revealed things to him which only God could have known.

Then v. 16, Abraham went part of the way to Sodom. While the two angels went on to Sodom, the Lord remained with Abraham. It's here, v. 20,  that we learn of our Lord God's discussion with Abraham why God intended to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

V. 20,21  "And the Lord God said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grevious. I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to me: or whether it not be so, that I may know."

In accordance with Sacred Scripture Catholic theology teaches there are 4 sins which cry to Heaven for vengeance...the sin of Sodom as God pronounced here is one of the four. True, their (both cities) sins (plural) were many, but the sin (singular) of Sodom ( those of unnatural impurity which is sodomy) were the chief and most grevious to God.  God promised Abraham that He wouldn't destroy if Abraham could find 10 just men but the ten just men weren't to be found and so God sent the two angels to destroy it.

God's hatred of sexual impurity, the most shameful of all sins, is an abomination before God and that is the lesson we should take from Genesis 18 and 19. It leads to many other sins and easily results in impenitence and impiety, as was the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. Almighty God doesn't always punish sins in this world, but He will certainly do so in the next at our final Judgment.

"Do not err; neither fornicators, nor adulterers shall possess the kingdom of God." 1Cor. 6:9.

I would imagine that this is the case because at the time period society was very much a patriarch and the female form would not have gotten the respect that the male form would have.

 

well they're always depicted in the male sense as is God.  So do with it what you want Leauki.  I'm not going to argue semantics with you, like you seem to like, but they're NEVER depicted as female. 

there you go.  Good answer.  You can stop at the "but."  

 Actually there is something about the angels mating in Gen 6.  Admittedly there's much discussion about this but many commentators over the years believe these were angels taking on the form of men and mating with human women, an idea from Satan trying to dirty the lineage knowing that the Messiah was to come from woman down the line.

Whoa!  Hold on.  Are you saying that I'm saying this was the ONLY occurance of homosexuality in this city?  This lone example was evidence of the problem going on in that city.  It's as though God was saying "see this is why I'm destroying this city.  It's as bad as I said to Abraham." 

Com'on don't be stupid.  It says men....it was men.  Read it yourself.  Scripture also says that we should be careful because we don't know when we might be visited by angels.  If God can take on a human body in the person of Christ don't you think an angel could?   Who said anything about procreating anyhow?  Its clear El-D you're over your head here discussing this subject and since you've not done the reading Homework it's hard to go over every little detail with you.  You need to read the material first. 

Nope I've never said or admitted any such thing.  God is spirit.  We know that.  But he's always depicted as a Father, not a mother.  He's always depicted as male not female.  I can't go any further than that. 

 

 

while that's true, it goes deeper than that.  Thousands of years after Moses wrote Jesus showed up on the scene as did the NT writers and they also referred to God as "father."  Jesus taught us how to pray "Our father who art in heaven." 

 

Because procreation is a natural urge. Because there is a difference between an adopted and a biological child. Because spending your money on yourself instead of on charity is not evil.

A better question is why WOULD you fault a person for spending money on conception therapy instead of just giving up on having biological children and instead adopting a child?

Only reason I can think of is that "god meant for them to be barren and adopt a child instead". And as an atheist that is not a valid reason.

 

parkNride... WTF is "persistent" sex? and sodom and gemora they tried to rape the angels, not have sex with them. An angel is NOT an animal, nor is it beastiality... You do not have the power to call down meteors, you are crazy. And finally if an animal (not metaphorically) to hump your daughter it should be "fixed" not killed... you know what, I just don't know what to say to you except get some therapy and perspective.

 

Um taltamir I didn't say I could bring down meteors I said it was probably a meteor shower that destroyed the place.

I didn’t refer to angels as animals I placed them higher than us as we place ourselves higher then animals .

I used the word persistent as using the word rape for an animal didn’t seem the right word to use for an animal.

And so let me get this right it’s ok for god to wipe out a entire city because of their sexual urges or whatever you wish to refer to it as, plus other stuff but if a animal keeps trying to do the same thing its have its nuts cut off. So why didn’t god do that to the citizens of the city?  I mean he is god he should be able to do that he is the almighty, anyone can kill and destroy we humans do it all the time that’s no deterrent but the men/women of a entire town being “fixed” overnight I’m sure would make people stand up and take notice a hell of a lot more then destroying the city and killing everyone.

 So god destroys Sodom and Gomorrah but lets people like Hitler kill thousands of innocent people and does nothing where was god then? Having a nap?

 

“, I just don't know what to say to you except get some therapy and perspective.”

 I don’t need therapy I stop believing in fairytales when I was about 2 yrs old and perspective oh please pot calling kettle black there.

 

park, why should I justify gods actions? i don't beleive in him. God as describe in the bible, torah, and kuran is a petulent immature child with a lot of power and a lack of wisdom, foresight, or kindness.

Government will make less money because of that contract, hence the people would have to agree to such a contract. But that doesn't touch civil unions as a concept (and I personally think that no type of marriage should entitle people to paying less taxes).




Hebrew doesn't have a neutral pronoun, not for objects, not for beings. The pronoun used in Hebrew to refer to an "it" is the Hebrew for "he". This does not usually lead to problems.




That is part of it, certainly.

They can do with their money whatever they like.

But I certainly don't have to respect them for choosing not to adopt and fight nature instead to get the same results.

 

 

I have seen hundreds of pictures and statues of female-looking angels in my life. I am sure you must have too.




I am saying that it doesn't literally describe a homosexual act AND didn't have an impact on G-d's decision to destroy the city.

Which other occurance of homosexuality (assuming the event discussed here is such an occurance) are you referring to?




The word is "anashim". It means "people". It's the plural of both "man" (in unmixed groups) and "woman" (in mixed groups).

"ish" = "man" and "person (of unspecificed gender)"

"isha" = "woman"

"nashim" = "women"

"anashim" = "men" and "people"

Hebrew has only two genders, "female" and "everything else". Here's how you use the words:

"ish" is a male or a person whose gender is not part of the story.

"isha" is a female.

"ish" mentioned next to "isha" is a male.

"nashim" are several females.

"anashim" mentioned next to "nashim" are several males.

And "anashim" alone are people of unspecified gender.

English has a neutral gender and the word "people" for a group of people of unspecified gender.

You see the problem with a literal reading? Without adding an interpretation, the text can mean many things.

Like I said it was just a thought, and not a very serious one at that.  I wasn't meaning to have a big debate about it.  All I'm saying is that unless you actually see the equipment you are only assuming the sex of anyone angel or otherwise.

And you don't think that maybe that is because of the patriarchal society that existed when the bible was written?  The bottom line is that we don't have a genderless pronoun and the authors had to come up with some way to refer to God. A likely reason for picking he, him, father, etc. is that men were more respected than women in that society.  I'm not saying that it definitely was the reason, no one can say that, but it is likely.

expecially when you are dealing with a text that has been translated into many different languanges few of which have a 1 to 1 relationship for the words.

Exactly.

And then add time. We have no idea whether Israelites 3000 years ago were as focused on homosexuality as some Christians are today.

(I read the text in the original.)

 

it doesn't describe an act because there was NO act.  God's decision to destroy Sodom was because of it's wickedness and both Gen 19 and Jude 7 either show us or tell us it was because of sexual pervision.  I believe that it was both because of homo and hetero perverted sex. I mean even Lot who was considered a righteous man was ready to give up his virgin daughters to this crowd.  He was tainted with the sexual sin of this city.   In a culture that's like the last straw.  There's a progression of sin leading up to this point as Paul wrote about in Romans 1. 

 There's a good book out called "The Truth Wars" by John McArthur who really gets into this whole thing.  He says that God gives them up to a reprobate mind and when he does all sorts of sexual sins result eventually leading to their demise just like we see here in Gen 18 & 19.  So I believe God had already given them over to their own debauchery before he destroyed them.  I think that's exactly what we are seeing in our own culture.  We were once blessed.  We have now lost that blessing.  God has given us up and look where we're heading.  It's all culminating to the end just like Sodom.  I believe those who stay out of the fray because they love God and the truth (like Lot) will be taken out before God eventually destroys the earth just like he did Sodom. 

yes which is very interesting given the fact that angels that we know of are all mentioned as male.  But that doesn't mean there aren't any female angels or that angels are genderless.  All I can say, from what I know and read, is the angels depicted in scripture either take on male human form or are described in the male person. 

ok, but what I'm saying is by taking the general reading like you would any other reading it's clear to see they are males.  It's never ever been up for debate.  Only Leauki would do this. 

It doesn't matter if we do or not.  There is she's and he's in the bible.  Whenever God is mentioned it's always with the male pronoun and description.  He's always called Father, not mother.  So Leauki is creating a strawman here and you're falling for it.  When Jesus came in the flesh, he came as a male, not a female.  He was God in the flesh.  God all thru scripture always picks the weaker things to confound the wise.  That's why he picked David, the youngest son of Jesse.  That's why he picked Moses who couldn't speak well.  That's why he picked Mary, a teenage girl who was a nobody etc.  So if it were as you say, why didn't God come in the flesh as a woman? 

Besides all this those scripture are the direct revelation from God.  They are God breathed words to mankind.  So even if these authors were male sexist, God would still have overridden them in his inspiration.  These authors, used by God, wrote many things down that lifted woman up as equals to men and many things that made themselves look bad. 

it doesn't really matter El-D about how many times it's been translated because we have over 5,000 original ancient copies to translate from.  God made sure these originals survived so we shouldn't really even have a problem with this.  The diff translations are just so we can stay current with our own modern language.  For instance we replaced the thees and thous with you and yours etc. 

 

and I've got the original Gk and HEbrew here right next to me.  I also have many dictionaries and lexicons. I also know that my NKJV and NASB are very very close to the original GK and Hebrew Text so I can read the scriptures in my own language. 

It has nothing to do with being focused on homosexuality.  You may want to read Leviticus Leauki where God says a man lying with a man is an abomination to God. 

"do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable."  Chap 18:22

Is that focusing on homosexuality too much?  He goes on to warn what happens after he lists a myriad of sexual sins: 

"Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.  Even the land was defiled., so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.........for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you and the land became defiled.  And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. "

 

 

It's not a strawman, it's simple fact of language.

Hebrew only has two genders, hence inanimate objects must have one of the two.

(German has three genders but they are assigned randomly. "Table", for example, is male. But it's quite a stretch from reading "he, the table" to arguing that tables are physically male like a man.)

 

Oh, please.

When I read the story I didn't even think that it could be about homosexuality because the subject simply wasn't on my mind.

I have seen here, live and in front of my eyes, that THINKING about homosexuality makes one READ the story as being about homosexuality. So don't tell me that it has nothing to do with it.

A woman enters a bar and asks the bar tender for a double entendre.

So he gave her one.