Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I do not want this post to turn into a hate thread. I just want a clarification on something.

In the bible, two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah (pardon my spelling if I misspelt it), were destroyed by god because the people in there were sinful. We all know the story about Abraham (I think) begging god not to destroy them if there were even 5 good men in there, but there were not 5 good men, so it was destroyed (I'm sorry if I'm mixing this up with another story). I was told by someone that the two cities were "sinful" because Sodom and Gomorrah allowed gay marriage. Is this true or false? Please show me proof and cite it.

Firstly I should state that I am currently going through an Atheist phase, due to various theological inconsistencies, although I could possibly return to Theism at some future date.

There has been a lot written about S & G over the years.  It all centres on the attitude of the townspeople of Sodom to Lot's guests, apparently angels, although this is actually irrelevant.

Apparently some of the male population wanted to rape them,( thereby treating  men as  women) which in the absence of any known tribe certain to avenge this, was  the most shameful thing that could have happened to them, in that time and culture.   

In the Middle East of that time, and even today, hospitality to strangers is a social obligation of the highest order, and transgressing this is a serious matter.  In a desert environment, hospitality to travellers could be a matter of life and death, as a favour given would no doubt be returned at some time in the future.

Basically Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, because their behaviour would have spread and caused a major catastrophe in the future, as each village looked after itself to the exclusion of all others.  War would probably have resulted, destroying any future Israel.

That is a summary of what I have read on the story. 

Karen.

Bible is quite clear on Sodom and Gomorrah being full of gay and lesbians pursuing indiscriminate same-sex sex.  So the two cities had to go.

The stories in Genesis are all rather extreme.

According to the account in Genesis:

Lot handed over his two daughters to the mob, to be gang raped, to save his two male guests, even though the guests were complete strangers and Lot had just met them.

Later, when Lot and his two daughters, (who presumably had survived the gang rape), had to flee the town and shelter in a cave, the two daughters got their revenge on their dad, by having sex with him.

I'm sure that some happy clappy could find a way to twist that piece of nonsense into a justification for his own pointless existence at other's expense!

It is probable that most of the OT was indeed written by a succession of writers from one tribe, Israelites, as a record of their history. That is all it is though and the lessons are no more important than some detail of kings Henry the IV or Duncan II are to those of us living in the British Isles.

But Genesis was almost certainly compiled from many different traditions. Most probably originating from some of the many, diverse ethinic groups that followed Moses when he left Egypt.

As Christians, all we need to concern ourselves with are the actual teachings of Jesus. If someone else contradicts those teachings, judging us for example, then we can safely ignore them.

To fail to do this is to say that we regard Jesus as of lesser importance.

Wonder what the happy clappys would say to that?

The Torah tells us the story of the rise and downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah. To the non-believer, the Biblical story seems so incredible that it must be relegated to the realm of myth and fantasy. The 20th-century German Bible critic, Theodor Noldeke asserted that "The whole story of Sodom and Gomorrah is unhistorical and comparatively late in origin." J. Maxwell Miller of Emory University boldly claims, "These narratives of Sodom and Gomorrah are purely products of the storyteller's art, which of course raises serious questions about their usefulness for historical reconstruction." John H. Hayes, a colleague of the aforementioned J. Maxwell Miller, confirms Professor Miller's belief. [1] Are the assertions of these skeptics based on facts or are they merely the distorted opinions of non-believers? Let us examine the facts of the case and see for ourselves......

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48931527.html (http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48931527.html)

Happy readings

Perhaps it was sinful, but sin had been around a long time and is actually described as any shortfall from absolute perfection, which we know human beings aren't capable of achieving anyway. What was probably the most egregious offense was the indiscriminate, any port-in-the-storm attitude of sexual perversion where there was no commitment between couplings and love wasn't a part of the equation. That manifested itself dramatically when the locals insisted on having sex with the angelic visitors like Justmeinoz pointed out.

I won't waste my time on this thread because I can see where it's leading already. Suffice it to say that there is always a huge crowd of educated naysayers to anything biblical, however the archeological site has been located some time back. The story holds up perfectly on it's own weight as it's typical of human nature.

Sexual Nature of Sin

Throughout history, Sodomite society has been used as metaphors for rape, homosexuality, sexual immorality, and sexual deviance. The English word, "Sodomy", is derived from "Sodom", and means non-vaginal intercourse, as well as bestiality.

The Catholic Church pounced on this passage, as well as other New Testament passages, to support the Church's claim that acts of homosexuality are to be considered "acts of grave depravity".

Proponents of this theory point to the apparent demand by the men of Sodom for Lot's strangers to come out of the house, so they can forcibly have homosexual intercourse with them.

In other words, the Sodomite men want to rape the angels in Lot's house. However, there are scholars who claim that this passage is not referring to rape, or any acts of sexual immorality at all. The sin of Sodom, according to these people, is their inhospitable attitude towards strangers.

The crux of this division rests in the interpretation of the word, "Know".

"Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. -- Genesis 19:5

The Hebrew word for "Know" appears over 900 times in the Bible. Proponents of a non-sexual view hold that, of the 900 appearances, only 1 percent of the time is it used with sexual connotations. They argue that in this passage, the men of Sodom wanted to interrogate the men in Lot's house, not rape them.

However, one of those few sexual connotations occurs three verses later, when Lot offers up his two daughters to the Sodomite men, in exchange for the safety of the two angels.

"Behold now, I have two daughters who have not known man..."

Proponents of a sexual-nature of sin, point to the context which "Know" is used within the passage as evidence of sexual immorality.

If this passage remains vague still, there is a passage in the book of Jude which specifically names the sins of the Sodomite society.

http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/sodomite.html# (http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/sodomite.html#)<b>Sexual Nature of Sin</b>

I guess the answer is: NO. It seems the crime was cruelty, arrogance, intolerance, and selfishness

the answer is actually 'don't know'  as there isn't any evidence of marriage or cohabiting of same sex couples - only that there was pretty indiscriminate homosexuality/lesbianism.

Thanks. I just wanted to see different arguments/POVs people have and be more informed because I was not satisfied taking my homophobic friend's -possibly- twisted view on it. =)

Idk but you should listen to this lovely and topical song while you ponder the issue. Forgive the stupid video. :)
The Thermals - A Pillar of Salt (OFFICIAL VIDEO) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwgNMrs-i80#)

Ezekel 16:49-50:

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

Seems like people were even then asking, "What was the sin of Sodom?"  It is interesting that being arrogant, overfed, unconcerned, and unwilling to help the poor and needy were the sins mentioned.  Woe to the church who thinks hating gays is the most important thing to do and that rich people deserve all of their money and have no obligation to the poor.

That chapter goes on to imply that Sodom will be restored.

Sodom will be restored

And this time we'll call it California.

Quote from: tekla on March 05, 2012, 12:16:27 AM
Sodom will be restored

And this time we'll call it California.

ROFL that killed me xD

Quote from: lilacwoman on March 03, 2012, 09:14:33 AM
Bible is quite clear on Sodom and Gomorrah being full of gay and lesbians pursuing indiscriminate same-sex sex.  So the two cities had to go.

As someone who studied the Bible academically for almost a decade, this is furthest from the truth about what scriptures says concerning the cities....u may want to reread it.

Quote from: lilacwoman on March 03, 2012, 09:14:33 AM
Bible is quite clear on Sodom and Gomorrah being full of gay and lesbians pursuing indiscriminate same-sex sex.  So the two cities had to go.

This brings up so many questions.

On a totally unrelated note, anybody else intrigued by biblical references to purple? Purple was like salt back in the day, or like rare earth metals are now. Special stuff.

Purple was expensive because it was a colour-fast dye and only available from the shell of the Murex sea-snail.  Tyre had a monopoly, hence "Tyrean Purple" used on Consul's togas in Rome.  Apparently Tyre also stank. :D

Karen.

Quote from: Annah on March 12, 2012, 01:12:24 AM
As someone who studied the Bible academically for almost a decade, this is furthest from the truth about what scriptures says concerning the cities....u may want to reread it.

hmm I don't wanna read your bible as this seem perfectly uneqivocal to me how can it be read any different? : 
"But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them (KJV: know them, RSV: know them, NIV: can have sex with them, NJB: can have intercourse with them)."

Quote from: lilacwoman on March 12, 2012, 01:57:01 PM

hmm I don't wanna read your bible as this seem perfectly uneqivocal to me how can it be read any different? : 
"But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them (KJV: know them, RSV: know them, NIV: can have sex with them, NJB: can have intercourse with them)."

that still does not imply, in no way, that it was homosexuality. You said you do not read the bible and yet you try to argue its claims?

The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were -punished because of the way they treated people. In that culture, mistreating your guests were about as offensive as spitting on the face of God.

Furthermore, The New Testament talks about Sodom and Gomorrah being punished, not only because of how they treat their guests but because they were after strange flesh. Strange flesh, in the greek, is not homosexuality...or anything sexual for that matter. The strange flesh in koine greek referred to something that is not of this place, not standard, something higher than anthro (humanity).....which makes sense because it was Angels.

This parallels to the first fabled destruction of humanity when humanity and angels (strange flesh) procreated, giving birth to giants of the land which resulted in nothing but evil thoughts in the land.

So, yeah. It has nothing to do with homosexuality...at all.

You cant read something in the Bible (or on the internet) and just assume what you read and interpret is the only way. You cannot read a text at face value and disregard any cultural, social, historical, mythical, legendary, and theological implications in which the text was written.

Reading ancient text is not like reading the Cosmopolitan. It doesn't work that way.

Annah,
      Count me with lilacwoman because we can PC our way through the uncomfortable reality of what their behavior was concerning knowing other men and what strange flesh means but it is what it is! It was written that it is an abomination in the eyes of God for a man to lay with another man. But lest we get too worked up about that, the entire old testament is a historical review of how incapable anyone is of achieving perfection on their own merit, which leaves us all in the same boat. The ten commandments is the yardstick by which we can all measure how badly we all fall short. The answer to this enormous human cluster F*** is of course Christ!

hmmm in no way does "tasting strange flesh" mean anything. Anything your reading from the Bible can be either be taken literally, or can be taken which ever way it sounds to you. Either way ? SO many meanings. to mean the strange flesh thing doesn't mean homosexuals or lesbians doing it, or anything else.

A literal reading would imply that Lot, a righteous man, did right when he offered his daughters up to be raped.

I personally cannot not accept that, and thus have to read the story understanding that I cannot believe that suggestion that your own children be raped is somehow more righteous than wanting to rape angels.  Yet the town was destroyed an Lot was not.  So I think there must be a bit more than who people wanted to have sex with (or even who people were willing to have rape their daughters).

Lot was well aware that it was better to protect the angels as he was hoping that the townsfolk would recognise the danger of messing with God's mesengers.
It only makes esne to someone who understands we are all descended from Adama and Eve and not from some slime monster from some slime pool.
If you choose to ignore the truth and reality of Sodom and Gomorrah you can take all religion out of the world, level all the religious buildings, burn all the religious writings, erase all religious song and music and make all the religious leaders and workers get a day job.

Of course one bigger problem to most people than Sodom and Gomorrah is where did Cain get a wife.

Quote from: lilacwoman on March 12, 2012, 04:34:42 PM
If you choose to ignore the truth and reality of Sodom and Gomorrah you can take all religion out of the world, level all the religious buildings, burn all the religious writings, erase all religious song and music and make all the religious leaders and workers get a day job.

I don't think that follows, nor is disagreement the same as ignoring truth or reality.  Very smart and educated people (such as yourself) routinely debate these things.

but it does follow as most religions can be taken to be based on fairy tales concocted by layabouts who can spin a fine line of nonsense.

the maharishi who brainwashed many US people had the routine down pat and it was both sad and amusing to see him prattling his lines and gratefully receiving all the worldly goods of the bewitched.

And basically is there any difference to Lot giving his daughters up and the 900? supposedly educated American idiots who gave their children the poison in Jonestown?

 :police:

Religion can be a topic with many strongly held beliefs. But, let's please voice those beliefs without belittling the beliefs of others. Let's avoid the personal and group attacks.

Thanks.

If you choose to ignore the truth and reality of Sodom and Gomorrah you can take all religion out of the world, level all the religious buildings, burn all the religious writings, erase all religious song and music and make all the religious leaders and workers get a day job.

Nah the writings are historical if nothing else, and lots of the music is good, some of it awesome - but if you're taking Creed here, I'm with you - and the buildings can all be converted to other uses.  BUT...I'm having a hard time though imagining the downside of: take all religion out of the world and make all the religious leaders and workers get a day job.  I think the only people who shouldn't have a day job are those with a night job.  Everyone should work.

& The Truth - the reality in so far as the best academics across all the sciences and liberal arts agree - of Sodom and Gomorrah is that most likely they were horribly destroyed, but not for wanting to have sexy time with angles.

Quote from: Slanan on March 12, 2012, 04:28:07 PM
A literal reading would imply that Lot, a righteous man, did right when he offered his daughters up to be raped.

I personally cannot not accept that, and thus have to read the story understanding that I cannot believe that suggestion that your own children be raped is somehow more righteous than wanting to rape angels.  Yet the town was destroyed an Lot was not.  So I think there must be a bit more than who people wanted to have sex with (or even who people were willing to have rape their daughters).

There are some parts of the bible you really shouldn't take 'literally'. While other things mentioned in the Bible are pretty clear what they mean. :)

Quote from: Connie Anne on March 12, 2012, 06:15:14 PM
:police:

Religion can be a topic with many strongly held beliefs. But, let's please voice those beliefs without belittling the beliefs of others. Let's avoid the personal and group attacks.

Thanks.

What I cannot believe is that there are people here who call themselves transgender and use the same misquoted, mistranslated quotes that the homophobes use.

If I was not reading it here, I simply would not believe it.

Quote from: Annah on March 12, 2012, 07:14:07 PM
What I cannot believe is that there are people here who call themselves transgender and use the same misquoted, mistranslated quotes that the homophobes use.

If I was not reading it here, I simply would not believe it.

Forgive me, Annah, but I don't understand you're reply. Could you please elaborate? I don't recall putting any such comments in my request that folks here try to keep their responses civil.

Quote from: Connie Anne on March 12, 2012, 07:27:05 PM
Forgive me, Annah, but I don't understand you're reply. Could you please elaborate? I don't recall putting any such comments in my request that folks here try to keep their responses civil.

I think she may be referring to lilacwoman's posts, but that's just me. They also gave me a homophobic vibe, so yeah.

right. It isn't about the moderator. It's about lilac. She has a tendency of posting things ....well...that are transphobic and homophobic.

If she doesn't like herself then that's her own right. But my point is, don't bend text around to make a group of people look vile when they even admitted that they don't even read it.

Jason, Annah: thank you for the clarification. I was confused as it was my post that was quoted.

From what I've seen thus far, there have been multiple posts by multiple posters that could be considered to be in violation of the rules. So, I'm formally requesting that all parties concerned be more civil.

Thank you.

the bible  :o

Well, I haven't studied the Bible in a formal academic approach like Annah, but I have made a study of religion and myth simply out of amateur personal interest. I have found that whether you are talking about the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, or even the Enuma Elish, these ancient tales can only really be truly appreciated and understood if you interpret them in the contexts of the times and cultures in which they were written.

Language and culture evolve over time such that the definitions, grammar, metaphors, and other literary paradigms in use during one time period can become completely different a few thousand years later. As such, trying to interpret an ancient text from a modern paradigm can lead to some serious false conclusions. For example, a common metaphor in today's society is to say that it "rained cats and dogs". If a future historian five thousand years from now were to interpret that phrase from the point of view of it being "the literal words of the 21st century prophets", she might think felines and canines fell from the skies until the grounds was covered with oodles of poodles and puddles of pussycats when that is patently not what is intended by the metaphor. Heck, I have seen people get into fistfights over the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and that is a single, very concise passage written a mere 2 centuries ago, not thousands of years in the past.

I will say that the Bible as I understand it now is a very different book from what I was taught in Sunday School as a child.

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, I think the whole point of the story is that we should treat each other honestly, respectfully, and with good will lest we suffer the consequences.

Peace, y'all. :)

Quote from: Dana_H on March 13, 2012, 01:20:14 AM
Well, I haven't studied the Bible in a formal academic approach like Annah, but I have made a study of religion and myth simply out of amateur personal interest. I have found that whether you are talking about the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, or even the Enuma Elish, these ancient tales can only really be truly appreciated and understood if you interpret them in the contexts of the times and cultures in which they were written.

Language and culture evolve over time such that the definitions, grammar, metaphors, and other literary paradigms in use during one time period can become completely different a few thousand years later. As such, trying to interpret an ancient text from a modern paradigm can lead to some serious false conclusions. For example, a common metaphor in today's society is to say that it "rained cats and dogs". If a future historian five thousand years from now were to interpret that phrase from the point of view of it being "the literal words of the 21st century prophets", she might think felines and canines fell from the skies until the grounds was covered with oodles of poodles and puddles of pussycats when that is patently not what is intended by the metaphor. Heck, I have seen people get into fistfights over the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and that is a single, very concise passage written a mere 2 centuries ago, not thousands of years in the past.

I will say that the Bible as I understand it now is a very different book from what I was taught in Sunday School as a child.

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, I think the whole point of the story is that we should treat each other honestly, respectfully, and with good will lest we suffer the consequences.

Peace, y'all. :)

I could not agree more :)

When I hear religious arguments I usually end up thinking that people are worshiping themselves far more than they are worshiping god.

Quote from: Annah on March 12, 2012, 08:16:41 PM
right. It isn't about the moderator. It's about lilac. She has a tendency of posting things ....well...that are transphobic and homophobic.

I had noticed this too. I find it offensive.

for transphobic and homophobic read 'uncomfortably close to home'

I am asking both of you to end this now.  We don't need another locked topic.

LOL OK.

As for the sin of Sodom being a sin against angels (and, thus, offering up daughters is not as bad as the sin they committed, since the daughters were not angels), I don't disagree because I don't read or believe the Bible.  Rather, I disagree because other parts of the Bible place man (and woman) above angels in God's eyes.  1 Cor 6:3  "Do you not know that we will judge angels?"

Certainly trying to abuse an angel would be bad.  But so would not protecting your daughter.  The sin of sodom was their attitudes, behavior, and treatment of others.  Not a specific sexual sin.  Lot may have shown some promise, even after the ugly offer of his daughter, simply because he did at least provide the angels a place to stay - which nobody else did.  But it's not because he only had sex with women (and girls).

Quote from: Slanan on March 13, 2012, 06:04:05 PM
As for the sin of Sodom being a sin against angels (and, thus, offering up daughters is not as bad as the sin they committed, since the daughters were not angels), I don't disagree because I don't read or believe the Bible.  Rather, I disagree because other parts of the Bible place man (and woman) above angels in God's eyes.  1 Cor 6:3  "Do you not know that we will judge angels?"

Certainly trying to abuse an angel would be bad.  But so would not protecting your daughter.  The sin of sodom was their attitudes, behavior, and treatment of others.  Not a specific sexual sin.  Lot may have shown some promise, even after the ugly offer of his daughter, simply because he did at least provide the angels a place to stay - which nobody else did.  But it's not because he only had sex with women (and girls).

According to many sects of scripture, we were made a little higher than the angels. Meaning, we have free will in a sense that we can sin and fall short of God but God redeemed us (Christian theology). Angels do not have a free will....in a sense. They do not have the breathing room of sin and redemption. This is how we are higher than them.

However, there are things in which we are lower. In Genesis 6:1-4, sons of God translated from Hebrew were creatures of a divine nature vs godly men. The results of the divine procreating with the mortal yielded, in a sense, aberrations. Immediately after this story, it is the story of the flood where every human being thought evil.

Do I take these stories literally? No. I do find truths in story telling tho. For example, I do not believe Abraham Lincoln walked 3 miles in a snow storm, barefooted, to return an overdue library book. However, I do believe in the Spirit of the story that tried to convey the integrity of the soon to be leader of a nation torn in two from ideologies and convictions.

Do I see homosexuals as people who were abominable to God? No. I really see no evidence. The only thing that comes closest is in Leviticus where man shall not sleep with man....but right after that God uses the same word "abomination" for eating crabs, shrimp, and shellfish. So I do not take much stock in those scriptures in terms of pissing off God.

Quote from: Annah on March 13, 2012, 06:48:16 PM
According to many sects of scripture, we were made a little higher than the angels. Meaning, we have free will in a sense that we can sin and fall short of God but God redeemed us (Christian theology). Angels do not have a free will....in a sense. They do not have the breathing room of sin and redemption. This is how we are higher than them.

However, there are things in which we are lower. In Genesis 6:1-4, sons of God translated from Hebrew were creatures of a divine nature vs godly men. The results of the divine procreating with the mortal yielded, in a sense, aberrations. Immediately after this story, it is the story of the flood where every human being thought evil.

Do I take these stories literally? No. I do find truths in story telling tho. For example, I do not believe Abraham Lincoln walked 3 miles in a snow storm, barefooted, to return an overdue library book. However, I do believe in the Spirit of the story that tried to convey the integrity of the soon to be leader of a nation torn in two from ideologies and convictions.

Do I see homosexuals as people who were abominable to God? No. I really see no evidence. The only thing that comes closest is in Leviticus where man shall not sleep with man....but right after that God uses the same word "abomination" for eating crabs, shrimp, and shellfish. So I do not take much stock in those scriptures in terms of pissing off God.

I beg to differ with your view of the Angels lack of free will. Satan and his associates had =like us- free will- to choose to obey or disobey God, again like us he choose to disobey God, and thus -like us- he was punished.

if an angel exercising free will causes them to burn in hell for all eternity, is their will truly free? If an angel use their will to not obey God and face the consequences...is it truly free will? Because an angel's purpose is to serve God. To not serve God will result in grave consequences.

This same course of argument has been debated with human free will for centuries. Like the Tootsie Roll Owl, the world may never know :)

Of course, I have no idea for sure, but it's interesting to think about.

The Book of Enoch describes some of this.  The book describes the appearance of the 'fallen' angels who were jealous of humans. I have no idea where the book stands in religious literature. It seems odd that an angel can be jealous.

Oh well if the topic is going to run and run and not be locked   :D

angels are male so of course they were jealous of Adams sons having delightful sex with his daughters and wanted to try it themselves...which they did quite well and unfortunately produced the vicious giants who made such a mess of things that a Flood was the only way of cleansing the earth again.

Its because of the Flood that we have the polar icecaps and can't grow grain on the mountain tops and get skin cancers.

Quote from: lilacwoman on March 14, 2012, 04:09:55 AM
Oh well if the topic is going to run and run and not be locked   :D

angels are male so of course they were jealous of Adams sons having delightful sex with his daughters and wanted to try it themselves...which they did quite well and unfortunately produced the vicious giants who made such a mess of things that a Flood was the only way of cleansing the earth again.

Its because of the Flood that we have the polar icecaps and can't grow grain on the mountain tops and get skin cancers.

Angels are without gender.....theologically speaking in the Judeo-Christian sense.

And yeah, we kinda covered that part a page ago.
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,116442.msg899411.html#msg899411 (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,116442.msg899411.html#msg899411)

Quote from: Cindy James on March 14, 2012, 03:47:49 AM
The Book of Enoch describes some of this.  The book describes the appearance of the 'fallen' angels who were jealous of humans. I have no idea where the book stands in religious literature. It seems odd that an angel can be jealous.

Theologically speaking (not like I actually talked to a fallen angel lol), a fallen angel would be jealous of humans because of two things:

1. Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God
2. Humanity is given chances of redemption

Angels were only created to serve and if they had fallen...there is no covenant in which they can seek out restoration with God.

This is strictly within the sphere of Judeo Christian belief tho. Angels, according to other religions, have a much wider diverse purpose.

This is a valid topic, being discussed reasonably.  I see no reason to consider locking it as long as it stays on topic.

Quote from: lilacwoman on March 14, 2012, 04:09:55 AM
Oh well if the topic is going to run and run and not be locked   :D

angels are male so of course they were jealous of Adams sons having delightful sex with his daughters and wanted to try it themselves...which they did quite well and unfortunately produced the vicious giants who made such a mess of things that a Flood was the only way of cleansing the earth again.

Its because of the Flood that we have the polar icecaps and can't grow grain on the mountain tops and get skin cancers.

If we go by the Jewish religious books, such as the talmud, and the book of enoch,then Angels do not have gender

 (Pertaining to the gender of Angels...)
It is strongly implied in Matthew (kjv) that angels are without gender. Unless I am interpreting this poorly.

Matt 22:29-30
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry (male) , nor are given in marriage (female) , but ARE AS the angels of God in heaven. 

The biggest injustice to anyone that is sincerely seeking the will of God in their life are those who either do not see or blatantly ignore the difference between the spirit of man, the carnal mind and the Holy Ghost.

The spirit of man lusts to envy.
The carnal mind which is enmity with God seeks scripture to justify the lusts the spirit of man desires.

The Holy Ghost brings forth the rightly divided word of truth that reproves, rebukes and exhorts.
It will reprove the truth, rebuke the wrong and exhort those trying to serve the Lord with all their heart.

If the Lord wanted a bunch of people to teach after being taught in school or by some denomination he would have chosen 12 scribes or pharisees.
They knew Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic better than any Gentile preacher, teacher or professor today.

If a person truly wants the right answers it would be best to trust the Lord with all their heart and seek the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
The Spirit of God will guide them into the way of the Lord and reveal who teaches and preaches the rightly divided word of truth.

You'd have to admit it was the first example of "overkill" though.  Surely a plague of baldness or incontinence would have  been more appropriate as a first warning.   But then, I am an Athiest at the moment.

Karen.

Quote from: justmeinoz on March 16, 2012, 05:12:40 AM
You'd have to admit it was the first example of "overkill" though.  Surely a plague of baldness or incontinence would have  been more appropriate as a first warning.   But then, I am an Athiest at the moment.

Karen.

A plague of incontinence would certainly change my behavior. :laugh:

Thelogical speaking -as a Christian- the soul comes from God, thus is divine. So, when that soul is placed in a human, God knows -by virtue of being omniscient- if that souls is coming back to him or goes to hell. If that soul would be condemn then why to send it to begin with ? And more important where is the so called free will ?

This is the kind of stuff that make me go "Hum mm" when I am driving out of Cleveland

Quote from: peky on March 16, 2012, 08:04:24 PM
Thelogical speaking -as a Christian- the soul comes from God, thus is divine. So, when that soul is placed in a human, God knows -by virtue of being omniscient- if that souls is coming back to him or goes to hell. If that soul would be condemn then why to send it to begin with ? And more important where is the so called free will ?

This is the kind of stuff that make me go "Hum mm" when I am driving out of Cleveland

the thins that make me go hmmm....is when I really dwell into the theory of predestination and double predestination

I'm reading a book on sexual behavior and culture among the american colonists (puritans, mostly), and this thread title is seeming more loaded and suggestive every time I look at it. :laugh:

You know my dad read this story when I was younger.

At the point in which Lot submits his daughters I was like, "So he was going to let the men rape his daughters?"
"yeah"

"...And you don't see a problem with that?"

I am very surprised how many christians -don't- think this is a problem.

Like Abraham being asked to sacrifice his [son,] some of these things are considered to be tests of faith.

(Edit - good catch Peky!)

Quote from: Jamie D on April 30, 2012, 07:06:07 PM
Like Abraham being asked to sacrifice his (son), some of these things are considered to be tests of faith.

A "test of faith" presumes implicitly that God does not know the outcome, so much for omniscient


BTW: Thanks for "resurrecting" this thread

Quote from: peky on April 30, 2012, 07:53:34 PM
A "test of faith" presumes implicitly that God does not know the outcome, so much for omniscient


BTW: Thanks for "resurrecting" this thread

The "test of faith" is what the believer does since he or she doesn't know the outcome!

Quote from: Shantel on May 01, 2012, 03:00:56 PM
The "test of faith" is what the believer does since he or she doesn't know the outcome!

The "test of faith" is no self imposed, but alledgelly imposed by God, to test his servants; my point remains valid.

Quote from: peky on May 02, 2012, 07:15:54 AM
The "test of faith" is no self imposed, but alledgelly imposed by God, to test his servants; my point remains valid.

It's a two way street! For instance when the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea and spend another forty years wandering around in the desert, it was a test of faith. God was testing them to trust in Him and they were trusting Him to deliver them out of bondage into a better life. Tests of faith go both ways.

Quote from: peky on April 30, 2012, 07:53:34 PM
A "test of faith" presumes implicitly that God does not know the outcome, so much for omniscient


BTW: Thanks for "resurrecting" this thread

a test of faith does not presume implicitly that God does not know the outcome. A test of faith is for a person that does not know the outcome but trusts God is nevertheless in control and it is in God's wisdom that whatever outcome happens from the test of faith is done for the spiritual betterment of the individual.

Quote from: Annah on May 02, 2012, 12:56:30 PM
a test of faith does not presume implicitly that God does not know the outcome. A test of faith is for a person that does not know the outcome but trusts God is nevertheless in control and it is in God's wisdom that whatever outcome happens from the test of faith is done for the spiritual betterment of the individual.

Nicely state, Annah.

Quote from: Annah on May 02, 2012, 12:56:30 PM
a test of faith does not presume implicitly that God does not know the outcome. A test of faith is for a person that does not know the outcome but trusts God is nevertheless in control and it is in God's wisdom that whatever outcome happens from the test of faith is done for the spiritual betterment of the individual.

It took 7 days for God to create the Universe, and 6 days for Annah to be resurrected to Susan's place  ;D 

I knew you could not stay away for to long, and miss all this oportunities to defend the faith. (I think we should have a thread on the virtues and rewards of defending the faith).  In any case welcome back!

As for the thread you could reformat the the "test" to be all about the humans, so to fit your ideology, yet  the center the point remains: either we have free will, or God is not omniscient, can have it both ways

Actually, I believe it took billions of years for the Universe to be created but that's for another topic. :)

I'm pretty much lingering around. My posting had decreased dramatically due to other Seminary commitments. But I enjoy posting in the religious section.

But back to topic

If one believes in predestination or that God elects those in whom God gives grace to, that would not take away a sense of omniscient. Also, if one has free will, that does not take away from God's omniscient attributes either.

Hundreds of documents and dozens of official confessions from both Free Will churches and Reformed Churches (Predestination) believes that God is omniscient.

The Free will types of churches (Some Anabaptist, Dodrecht, MCC, AG, Baptists) believes that we have free will through a conversion experience and holds onto the belief that God is omniscient.

Predestination or elect churches (confessions of Trent, Lutherans, Augsberg confession, 2nd Helvetic, Westminster, and Heidelberg) believes that God presents grace to us and there is no form of conversion that will earn it to us. God simply gives it to us. These churches also believe God is omniscient.

A being can give someone free will and still know the outcome of everything and know everything there is to know. Free will doesn't put place blinders on an omniscient God. Also, predestination does not either.

Free will in terms to "salvation" simply means God gives you the decision...purely your decision, on whether or not to follow God. In the end God does know what decision the person will make but it will not be through the efforts of God making the decision for the person. Hence, Omniscient is still available and free will is still practiced.

The same is true for predestination. Just because God gives you the choice freely without you trying to earn it, does not take away from God's omniscience.