Even if that were true (which it is not), what is the difference between "homosexual" lust and "heterosexual" lust?
I was making a point. The Angels appeared in the form of men. The men did not know they were Angels. Therefore, if the men wanted to have sex with the Angels, and thought the Angels were men, the men had homosexual intentions within their hearts. There is no (if it were true) because that was what they were desiring. Lot offered them a virgin women and they refused. Evidence of this is expressed by their lips:
"Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them" (Gen 19:4)
Furthermore, my NIV bible describes the Angels as men who cast blindness upon the sinners. (Gen 19:10)
So you see, Angels appeared in the form of men. They had the bodies of men. They were fully Angels, with bodies of men. Likewise, Jesus is God taking the form of a man. The Angels cannot be genderless in this case. And in this case, they had bodies of men, including gentiles.
You also forget that Lot offered to wash the Angels feet (Gen 19: 2) and that the Angels had a meal (Gen 19:3) and slept (Gen 19:4).
The Angels appeared fully as men, and the sinners wanted to commit homosexual acts with them.
I have a lust for a new computer. Is my lust for a Dell any different from my lust for a HP? How so?
lust is lust, but I am making a point here about Angels taking on the form of men: they could eat, sleep, have their feet washed, and they were so obvious as looking like men that the people of Soddom believed they were men. This is not inappropriate behavior with animals.
inappropriate behavior with animals is sex between two different species.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&s... animals&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/inappropriate behavior with animals#Religious_perspectives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/inappropriate behavior with animals
http://www.answers.com/topic/inappropriate behavior with animals
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=194478
I have provided you with christian sources of the definition in my previous posts and non-christian definitions in this post. In all the links I have given for how it is defined are respectable sources that will define it as sexual relations between Mankind and animalkind.
According to this website, Catholic.org, Angels are defined as spiritual messangers:
"
What are angels?
An
angel is a pure spirit created by God. The Old Testament theology included the belief in angels: the name applied to certain spiritual beings or intelligences of heavenly residence, employed by God as the ministers of His will.
The English word "angel" comes from the Greek angelos, which means 'messenger'. In the Old Testament, with two exceptions, the Hebrew word for "angel" is malak, also meaning 'messenger'. The prophet Malachi took his name from this word. He was himself a messenger, and he prophesied about the coming of "the messenger of the covenant", Jesus Christ (Malachi 3:1).
Although the word "angel" in the Bible, meaning a messenger, nearly always applies to heavenly beings, it can occasionally apply to human messengers. Malachi himself said a priest was a messenger (malak) of the LORD of hosts (Malachi 2:7), and in the Book of Revelation the elders of the seven churches of Asia were called angels (1:20; 2:1 etc.). But when we meet messengers doing supernatural things, there is no doubt they are heavenly beings - God's messengers, working for Him and for the ultimate benefit of mankind."
Now, I don't know where you get your information from by calling Angelic and humanistic sex, inappropriate behavior with animals, because that is not what it is.
They are two different species. That is, in effect, inappropriate behavior with animals.
Are Spirits defined a species? Nonetheless, Angels are not animals, nor are they spiritual animals, therefore, Angelic sex with humans is not inappropriate behavior with animals.
The Spirit of God resided in the body of Jesus, who was God in the flesh, yet, he had a human form, though he was born of the virgin Mary.
There is no way you can convince me that Angels are beasts, animals, and change my definition, according to respectable christian, non-christian reliable sources of what inappropriate behavior with animals is: sexual intercourse between animals and humans. Angels are neither human nor animal, but spirits, in the form of men: forms that allowed them to eat, drink, sleep, and be washed. Likewise, in these forms, I expect they were fully capable to do other things that humans could.
- Rob