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.

 

Only if you therefor assume that the rest of the Bible is automatically also about homosexuality. It isn't.

But that's not even the point.

Where does the Bible say anything against civil unions between men?

 

That's because there are men and women in the bible.  God is mentioned using a male pronoun for lack of a better pronoun and to remain consistent.  Would you take the text as seriously if they kept switching the pronouns that are used to refer to god?  I doubt it.

I'm not falling for anything.  I have always had this contention I just haven't mentioned it before now because it never came up before.

Assuming Jesus actually existed he was a human therefore he had to have some gender.  If God actually created him to be some savior of society he would have picked a male gender because of the patriachal society that existed, a female would have more disrespected than Jesus supposedly was.

You are assuming that the bible was written as the word of god not biased by those writting it (either originally or by those who translated it).  I would say that bias could easily explain your questions.  it would explain why the male pronoun was used to refer to God, it would explain why the authors chose to make Jesus a male, etc.  I know you are going to come back at this by saying that the bible was divinely written and I'm just saying that I don't buy that, I might be able to go as far as to say divinely inspired but as an agnostic even that is a bit far fetched for me.

But you are still translating into languages that don't have a direct 1 to 1 translation for every word so there is bound to be something lost or possibly added in translation.  There could have even been something lost in translation from God's words to the original language that the bible was written in or do you believe that language in general is divinely inspired?

 

exactly.  It's not the point. 

It doesn't.  And that's not the point either. 

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this?  Are you saying God is both male and female or just genderless?  If so, where are you getting this from?  I mean I'm getting the maleness from the scriptures as written and as believed all thru the centuries.  For whatever reason God wants us to think of him as a Father figure moreso than a mother figure although I do think God has a very soft tender side to him for those he loves. 

the contention that angels are female?  Or that Jesus or God could be female? 

what do you mean assuming?  Are you saying I'm making this man up?  Or anyone is?  He's an historical figure and there's no doubt he existed.  There were many eyewittness accounts on account of him and much written about him from the first century onward.  It's not doubted he existed.  The debate is what he who he claimed to be?  That's the million dollar question and the one I believe our individual eternity is at stake over. 

Not necessarily and not fitting the MO that God was known for.  He always used the lowly or unconventional things to confound the wise.  Paul wrote:

"For you see your calling how that not many wise men after the flesh not many mighty not many noble are called.  But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world and things which are despised, has God chosen yes and things which are not to bring to nought things that are."  1 Cor 1:26-28

Besides all that....look how much he was accepted.  So much so they had him beaten, scourged and killed in a most brutal way.  Some respect.

Jesus came as a male because that's what best represented God in the flesh.  He also chose 12 men (not women) as Apostles and men were to be both the leaders of their homes and churches.  Not because men were better or wiser or more powerful than woman but because he had different roles for both men and women.  They were created equal but with diff roles.  The men he chose were men not necessarily those you or I would have picked.  They were not religious and most were barely literate.  Again, God doesn't choose the way the world would choose yet these 12 men were to change the world by their witness of Christ.

Yes I believe the scriptures are divinely inspired. They are just as relevant today as when first written. Even more so as we move towards the latter end of the age.   You and I will soon be dust of this earth and there will be someone else to replace us having this very same argument.  The word of God stands forever.  It never fades out of existence even when there's a movement to destroy it.  It comes back stronger than ever.   

Everytime I read the scriptures (daily), I am constantly amazed.  I'm an avid reader and nothing compares to the written scripture.  Nothing. 

I believe that the word as originally written was and is inspired.  Therefore nothing was "lost."  If so, God couldn't be God now could he?  I mean think about it....how can God created the big bold amazing universe but not be able to get his words printed the way he wanted them? 

 

 

Well, G-d obviously has problems getting His word out. Otherwise it wouldn't be so difficult to figure out which of the many many holy texts of the world is correct. It doesn't help that He apparently refuses to rewrite His book in plain English.

I happen to know that information gets lost whenever anything is translated. Information also gets lost when text is being copied by man. A Vav (Hebrew letter) becomes a Yud (similar letter) and what was once inspired is now merely a series of letters.

 

Seeing as how God has no need to have sex if he exists then he would be genderless and may not even be humanoid.  As I have said the "maleness" from the scripture is mostly due to a lack of a gender neutral pronoun with which to refer to God and so there was a choice to be made: male or female, since the society is a patriach then male was chosen over female.  that seems logical to me.

The contention that angels, god were most likely gender neutral and that Jesus could have been female and it was the bias of man that wrote him as being a man since the new testament wasn't written down for a while after his death (assuming he lived at all).

I'm saying that the main record used to prove his existence is the bible and I don't believe in the accuracy of the bible therefore I am assuming he existed for the sake of argument.  You believe that he existed and that's fine, I however do not.

But he was respected by those that followed him, would they have been as willing to follow a woman?  Maybe but again I point the society as being a patriach.

And again I argue that the society place men above women so it made sense to pick men to preach the word of Jesus and to follow Jesus because people would be more likely to listen to a man than they would a woman.

If the language of man can't accurately describe the language of God then something would have to get lost.