Gay Pride, the final sign of the end...

[Smoke]

You say that verse 6 says angels fell and had sex with humans? How do you conclude that. I know it is difficult through typing, at least it can be for me at times, but the verse says nothing about sex.

No, it doesn't. But the Book of Enoch does, and we know the author is familiar with the story of angels having sex with human women in that book because he quotes from that book.

Here in verse 7 we have a comparison made from the author of Jude. Pointing out that for like reasons and results as Satan falling from his former glory, so to did Sodom fall from any glory it had.
It then states why Sodom fell, because of its fornication, going after strange flesh.

I am curious why you extract out of that they had sex with angels?

They didn't have sex with angels. But they wanted to -- both the men and the women of Sodom.

 

[Midnight Pete]

If Gay Pride is a sign of the End Times, so be it. What can we do to cancel or prolong the End Times anyway? Judgement Day is inevitable.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

No, it doesn't. But the Book of Enoch does, and we know the author is familiar with the story of angels having sex with human women in that book because he quotes from that book.

They didn't have sex with angels. But they wanted to -- both the men and the women of Sodom.

I get it now, sorry for being so slow. We are not talking about just the bible. That is what threw me off.

Below you will see a passage from the Book of Enoch, but maybe you are not aware that this book is riddled with insertions from other books and manuscripts. In the example below it is believed it is part of a Noah fragment and just inserted in the Book of Enoch. Even if you take a course at school on the Book of Enoch you will learn the structure of the book must be understood, because it is actually four different books.

So you see, this angel business and having sex or desiring to have sex with humans did not come from the book Jude was referring too. So I am afraid your idea just doesn't hold water. Can we agree on that now?

VI-XI. The Fall of the Angels: the Demoralisation of Mankind: the Intercession of the Angels on behalf of Mankind. The Dooms pronounced by God on the Angels: the Messianic Kingdom (a Noah fragment).
CHAPTER VI.
1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters.
2. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.'

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yes, and if he was a true Bible scholar, he would know what the true "sins" of Sodom and Gomorrah were...
Ezekiel 16:49-50
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.



Mathew 10:11-15
11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. 12 And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace be upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
¶15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha (sic) in the day of judgment, then for that city.




Inhospitably. Greed. Pride.




(Notice how whenever Sodom is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, no reference is made to homosexuality)

Of course for this book that is what he is focusing on, after all it is about Gay pride. However, to conclude he teaches Sodom's only sin was gay sex, is dishonest. I just wanted you to clarify...

Now Mike, don't go accusing me of dishonesty. I never said that he teaches Sodom's only sin was gay sex. I said he is ignoring what every other piece of information in the Bible says about the sins of Sodom. Of course he is doing this to support his idea that "Gay Pride" is a sign of the End Times.
But if he is correct, these signs should also include the sins of Sodom focused on in the rest of the Bible.
Why doesn't he do this? Because everyone who has only a basic understanding of the Bible links Sodom expressly to Homosexuality. It is an appeal to a popular fallacy in order to support his personal prophesy about the End Times.

It is people like this who are the dishonest ones.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Now Mike, don't go accusing me of dishonesty. I never said that he teaches Sodom's only sin was gay sex. I said he is ignoring what every other piece of information in the Bible says about the sins of Sodom. Of course he is doing this to support his idea that "Gay Pride" is a sign of the End Times.
But if he is correct, these signs should also include the sins of Sodom focused on in the rest of the Bible.
Why doesn't he do this? Because everyone who has only a basic understanding of the Bible links Sodom expressly to Homosexuality. It is an appeal to a popular fallacy in order to support his personal prophesy about the End Times.

It is people like this who are the dishonest ones.

TW, this only shows your lack of awareness of his work. In many many other literature he has written he goes over extensively Sodom. Again, it is premature of you to claim he falls under the popular fallacy.
This book was about Gay Pride, and the fact is in the bible Sodom is used as a picture of the end of the world. As for the other sins that happened in Sodom, which ones do you feel need to be talked about? He has exhaustively talked about Sodom in other arenas, and not just about gay sex.

Also to hint he has only a basic understanding of the bible I find dishonest again. I don't mean to attack you, but why are you saying things that aren't true?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Also to hint he has only a basic understanding of the bible I find dishonest again. I don't mean to attack you, but why are you saying things that aren't true?

Oh, I think he has profound knowledge of the Bible.
And a great talent for making it support his ideas. Especially to those who fall prey to his style of extracting prophesies where none exist.

 

[indian tea]

Gay Pride, the final sign of the end...

does anyone else see the irony in this title?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So let me take this a different direction.

Is it possible for a Christian that believes the bible is the word of God to not think homosexual activity is a sin?
I am not sure it is possible, I mean some might claim so, but if pressed I am not sure how they can conclude it is not a sin.

Evidence: murder, adultery, stealing, and lying.
All sins in the bible right? Now why is it a sin? Besides the bible "says so", we might ask are those universally wrong? For the most part they are. Of course the exceptions are if a person is starving and must steal to survive, or if you have to lie to save you life, or kill to protect yourself, etc...
So what actually makes it wrong? The idea is that society can not function or thrive if these things are freely done without restraint. So we teach our kids to accept these are wrong.
So, now we know they are wrong does the impulse to do those acts go away? Of course not, many people lie, steal, cheat, murder, even when they know it is wrong. But why? Can we conclude anything other than it is part of our nature or how we were born?

So what seems a proper cause to teach these acts are wrong and our society depends on adhering to these beliefs, we learn also people have to show restraint to avoid doing them in some cases. Example there are people that are inclined to be violent, so they have to sometimes get help to hold it back. But they get the help. Why? Cause being violent is innately wrong to the world, but some people feel they absolutely have to be violent. After all, it is how we are born, some have more desire to do such things than other though.

But we must go further. If a person steals and no one finds out, why is it wrong? If a person cheats on his wife and no one knows, why is it wrong? If a person murders, and no one knows, why is it wrong? Is there some innate part of us that believes these are just wrong because we can feel no other way?

So in two cases we see these actions (murder, adultery, stealing, and lying) are wrong because we are taught (or maybe reinforced) they are wrong, and because there is something innate inside us that knows they are wrong. Ultimately having to accept we are all born with these sins, and for some the urge to sin is much greater than in others. In fact this is where we can start talking about Gay Pride etc...

I believe the logic behind the bible's reason for not looking favorably on gay sex, is it is not proper in a natural sense. If there were two women on Earth and 2 men, but they were all homosexual they would have some complications in procreating. They could make it happen, but certainly would be a different world if that is how all babies were born through artificial ways etc... So in a sense the only negative aspect to gay sex is a theoretical stifling of procreation. Obviously that is not a big deal in our world today of 7 billion people, but the logic remains.

So back to a Christian perspective, if the bible says Gay sex is a sin, and given all the information above, how can a christian say gay sex is not a sin? Sure, you may tolerate it, but inside it must be sin to you...

I have carefully shown how other sins are perfectly natural and are part of who we are, but everyday we fight these urges, some more than others. So the whole Gay Pride agenda is to openly tell people they don't want to fight the urges of being gay, it is who they are, and they don't think it affects anyone one bit for them to be openly gay.
For the most part society is starting to agree with them. The farther society moves away from religion the more accepted Gay life will be.
This seems to be the explanation of why so many people in the ministry get caught either fornicating or having gay sex etc... These urges are part of the human specie, and while not everyone is gay, or straight, or cheater, or thief, it is mere semantics for the reason we could have easily been born as such. The christian way just claims to have the correct way to live as told in the bible, even though they too often fail at adhering to it. Part of which is trying not to steal, or cheat, or even be gay.

Anyway so, for anyone who actually read this, I was just thinking out loud... Any comments, feel free...

 

[Breathe]

So let me take this a different direction.

Is it possible for a Christian that believes the bible is the word of God to not think homosexual activity is a sin?

I think so.

There are, after all, gay and lesbian Christians. Even if it was a sin, it's only God's job to judge, and I think God would understand, since people cannot choose to be gay or straight.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I think so.

There are, after all, gay and lesbian Christians. Even if it was a sin, it's only God's job to judge, and I think God would understand, since people cannot choose to be gay or straight.

True there are gay and lesbian christians, but how can they believe the entire bible is the word of God?

True the bible teaches it is God's job to judge. Since having natural gay desires is part of some people's makeup, does that rule in theory grant acceptance since they have no control? So, if I have a tendency to steal, can I not just claim it is a natural desire I don't want to fight?
I guess what I am asking is if the bible teaches gay sex is a sin, how does any christian justify it?

 

[Breathe]

The difference is stealing makes a major problem in life, whom two consenting adults love does not harm anyone.

People generally don't want to steal unless they lack something. People can help but steal (except in rare cases such as extreme poverty, or kleptomania - which I'm sure God once again understands).

For example, if I kill, I harm people. Same as if I steal, rape, cheat, and so on. If I was gay, who would I be hurting? Nobody. After all, one would simply be loving another person.

Here's a verse that may interest you;

Romans 8:1 (NIV): Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So let me take this a different direction.

Is it possible for a Christian that believes the bible is the word of God to not think homosexual activity is a sin?

Yeah, I think that there is. It just depends on how one defines "word of God."

I suspect that he majority of churches who openly affirm homosexuality do think that the bible is the word of God.

There are several possible interpretations that these folks have adopted:

1) The admonitions against homosexuality are from Paul, not God
2) These admonitions are for that specific church
3) These homosexual relationships are destructive (non-commital, abusive, etc)
4) It doesn't address modern ideas of homosexuality at all

The majority of the church theologians in these churches would say that the bible itself is not the word of God, but that it contains it or points to it.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

The difference is stealing makes a major problem in life, whom two consenting adults love does not harm anyone.

People generally don't want to steal unless they lack something. People can help but steal (except in rare cases such as extreme poverty, or kleptomania - which I'm sure God once again understands).

For example, if I kill, I harm people. Same as if I steal, rape, cheat, and so on. If I was gay, who would I be hurting? Nobody. After all, one would simply be loving another person.

Here's a verse that may interest you;

Romans 8:1 (NIV): Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus

You're missing the point Odion. I might happen to agree with you, but we are discussing what the bible says, and christian that believe the bible is the word of God, how can they say gay sex is not a sin, even though you and I agree it harms none? How do they justify it?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

The majority of the church theologians in these churches would say that the bible itself is not the word of God, but that it contains it or points to it.

And under what authority can they make claims to know what parts are actually Gods, or what is it that it is pointing to, and how is that determined, when you say "points to it", that is very vague for me.

 

[Smoke]

I get it now, sorry for being so slow. We are not talking about just the bible. That is what threw me off.

Below you will see a passage from the Book of Enoch, but maybe you are not aware that this book is riddled with insertions from other books and manuscripts. In the example below it is believed it is part of a Noah fragment and just inserted in the Book of Enoch. Even if you take a course at school on the Book of Enoch you will learn the structure of the book must be understood, because it is actually four different books.

So you see, this angel business and having sex or desiring to have sex with humans did not come from the book Jude was referring too. So I am afraid your idea just doesn't hold water. Can we agree on that now?

No, we can't. The manuscript tradition of Enoch is complicated, but the passage quoted in Jude comes from the same part of Enoch -- the Book of the Watchers -- as the story of the Nephilim, and it's considered to be the oldest part of the book. Even the latest parts were completed long before the time of the Epistle of Jude.

Furthermore, it's not at all clear that the so-called "Noah fragments" are interpolations; scholars disagree on that point. But even if they are interpolations, it doesn't matter, because it is not only in the "Noah fragments" that Enoch mentions angels mating with human women.

And even if it were true that this is not what Jude is alluding to in verse 6, he's still talking about angels in these four consecutive verses. He is not talking about homosexuality.

 

[Smoke]

So let me take this a different direction.

Is it possible for a Christian that believes the bible is the word of God to not think homosexual activity is a sin?
I am not sure it is possible, I mean some might claim so, but if pressed I am not sure how they can conclude it is not a sin.

Understand what I'm saying. There are negative statements about homosexuality in the Bible. But the passage in Jude isn't one of them. Neither is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. These passages have been wantonly misinterpreted by bigots who are so eager to condemn homosexuality that they're willing to disrespect their own sacred texts to do it.

 

[Smoke]

True there are gay and lesbian christians, but how can they believe the entire bible is the word of God?

How can Christians who wear gold, who braid their hair, or who divorce and remarry believe the entire Bible is the word of God?

But it seems to me that you're derailing your own thread.

 

[Breathe]

You're missing the point Odion. I might happen to agree with you, but we are discussing what the bible says, and christian that believe the bible is the word of God, how can they say gay sex is not a sin, even though you and I agree it harms none? How do they justify it?

The Bible also says wearing clothes of two fabrics is a sin, as is cross-breeding animals, and sowing two seeds together. Others are it's a sin to get tattoos, cut one's beard, astrology, and be prepared to kill a false prophet, ritually slaughter an animal before eating it, not to eat the sinews of such animals, and to marry your brother's wife if he passes on if she has no children.


There are many laws in the Bible. Sexuality is just one that has stuck around as a taboo.

The point is, there are many laws in the Bible that Christians do not follow nowadays. They say they are no longer required.

The only time homosexuality is mentioned seems to be by Paul, whom some have wondered if he was a repressed homosexual and so this may have become his strong opinion. Whether he was or not though is a different story and too off-topic.

Jesus, though doesn't seem to have mentioned anything about homosexuality. He made the crowd not stone the adulteress, after all.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Understand what I'm saying. There are negative statements about homosexuality in the Bible. But the passage in Jude isn't one of them. Neither is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. These passages have been wantonly misinterpreted by bigots who are so eager to condemn homosexuality that they're willing to disrespect their own sacred texts to do it.

There is way too much emphasis put on homosexuality as a sin. It's touted as the sin to end all sins, worse than any other sin. What about all the other sins? What about greed, pride, wrath, gluttony, adultery, and sloth?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

No, we can't. The manuscript tradition of Enoch is complicated, but the passage quoted in Jude comes from the same part of Enoch -- the Book of the Watchers -- as the story of the Nephilim, and it's considered to be the oldest part of the book. Even the latest parts were completed long before the time of the Epistle of Jude.

I dunno, I was under the undertanding that chapter 6 - 16 were not thought to be something Enoch wrote. I am not qualified to real go into detail. If you have information to shed light on this I would like to look at it, I didn't know it was even an issue with regard to ch 6-16... The thing is many copies of Enoch, don't break things down, but a good copy will tell where they think each part actually came from, or at least what the evidence points to.

Furthermore, it's not at all clear that the so-called "Noah fragments" are interpolations; scholars disagree on that point. But even if they are interpolations, it doesn't matter, because it is not only in the "Noah fragments" that Enoch mentions angels mating with human women.

Again, this is disuputable, cause as I said ch 6-16 are considered Noah fragments. If I am wrong, I would need to see the research that says otherwise.

And even if it were true that this is not what Jude is alluding to in verse 6, he's still talking about angels in these four consecutive verses. He is not talking about homosexuality.

First let me be clear, I do believe Jude might be eluding to the Book of Enoch when to 10,000 saints are mentioned, but don't see any evidence for it to be referring to ch 6-16 of the other sections of Enoch.

So with all that cleared up a bit, let's do focus on the four verses you bring up Jude: verse's 6-9, your claims is that they are clearly talking about angels but not homosexuality.

[6] And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
[7] Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
[8] Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
[9] Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

It is true angels are mentioned, and hopefully we can suspend your argument that it implies the Book of Enoch's version of angels in ch 6-16 because we both seem to agree that it could go either way, based on our limited understanding.
Verses 6-9 can only be understood when in light of the entire book of Jude. It preludes with certain men have crept in an have been doing bad things. This could imply any type of sin.
When it gets to verse 5 Jude begins to list off a series of comparrisons to compare the men of the prelude to. In doing so, these men are compared to many things, one being the angels that fell (vs 6) and then with Michael (vs 9), but also with many other things does Jude continue to compare these men to.
The book teaches that destruction will come for those "type" of men. Then concludes by warning the faithful that they not fall into the similar fates of all those listed.

So where does homosexuality fit or not fit in all of that. Before I spend anymore time on that, I will wait for any feedback so far on this post.

Thanks...