If Angels Don't Marry,
Do They Still `Fool Around'?
This is from a forum discussion on Gen. 6:2 and the belief that
fallen angels (demons) had sex with human females.
Hi (name deleted)
I hope that I am not one whom you considered to be "condescending"
or "trivializing" this subject. If so, I do apologize.
And I apologize in advance if any of the following comments are
taken that way. I do not mean to offend.
>At 07:54 PM 12/22/96 +0000, you wrote:
>Luke 20:34 [Why don't the angels marry? Perhaps because they
are all male.]...
> marriage is possibly not an issue in the spirit realm because
all of the angels may be male in >gender.
We respond:
So we're saying that "all angels are male" and all
humans become "like the angels" so then "female
humans will become 'male' spirits"?
'No female spirits'?........Booorrrrrrinnng! In our opinion,
THAT would be "Hell"!
Since women have more connections between the lobes of the brain
(as opposed to men being 'half- brained'), wouldn't it make more
sense to make all spirits "female" rather than "male"?
Hey! That's a scary thought, isn't it, guys??!!!
Perhaps we should think about how becoming "male" would
affect the ladies? We could ask if that appeals to them. (Sugar-Pie,...
In the next world, I'm gonna call you, "Butch"! And
no more hand-holding or snuggling! I'm not into guys!) :-(
You wrote:
> If the whole population of the spirit realm are males, there
can be no marriages for obvious reasons.
Response:
What is the point of there being "males", if there
are no "females"? It would be more logical to be all
neuter, than to make half of the human race over into the opposite
sex. Would that then show Godly approval of sex-change operations?
= :-o
You wrote:
> Angels in the Bible are always referred to as being male
in gender, never in the Scriptures is an angel or any other spirit
being referred to as being female in gender or neuter (Judges
13:6, Zech 1:9, 4:1)
> Because all angels were created as males does not necessarily
mean that they are unable to reproduce.
Response:
"OUCH!!!!!!" =8^O
[We note: Why would God create `male' angels with the capacity
to reproduce when, according to the writer, there are no `female'
angels with whom they can reproduce? What purpose would God have
in creating angels with the capacity to have intercourse with
human females? Wouldn't that mean that they could also have the
capacity to have homosexual relations with human males? Would
not Sodom and Gomorrah have been a likely situation to discuss
that?
When Christ said in Mat. 22:30 that, they neither marry, nor
are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.,
we understand the following. In the cultural context, men marry,
while women are given in marriage . Christ was answering a question
about a woman who had multiple husbands. He said there are no
marriages in heaven. He said the reason there are no marriages
is because humans will then be like the angels. The implication
is that the angels do not have reproductive organs. Otherwise,
some might assume that Christ meant that there are no marriages
because female humans become `male' spirits. If that were true,
then they would, according to the writer's theory, have the capacity
to only have sex with those females who are still human. Any
contact with their former human husband would require a homosexual
approach. (Yeeeeecccch!)
If humans who become spirit, still have the ability to have sex,
but all marriages are ended and there are no new marriages, then
even a formerly married couple having sex, without the marriage
vows, would be committing fornication. If not, then any two (or
more) beings could have sex and we would have a Hedonistic view
of heaven. (That would certainly increase church attendance.)
If Christ was not saying that angels are sexless, then what was
he saying? The alternatives are mind boggling.]
To continue with a male-only reproduction:
We know that single-sex reproduction occurs in some life forms,
but God's image cannot be that of single-celled forms, or plant-like
and also be in the image of man. Analogies and parallels
have limitations.
In our opinion, God the Creator, is the only spirit capable of
"pro-creating" and He performed that through the power
of the Holy Spirit which demons do not have. Otherwise, why bother
with humans at all. Why not just work the plan by creating "male"
and "female" spirit-beings who can procreate? We believe
that when scripture says that God created all the spirit beings,
it eliminates the procreation issue (Gen. 2:1, Neh. 9:6, Col.
1:16).
For humans, who do procreate, He needed to create only the first
pair and to tell them to "be plentiful and multiply".
(We notice that He only had to tell them once. :-) Unto which
of the angels did He ever say these things?
You wrote:
>Their offspring were apparently warriors of great strength,
and God views this as wickedness.
Response:
Samson ripped apart a lion with his bare hands, killed 1,000
Philistines with a jawbone and after being buzzed, blinded and
shackled, took out 3,000 more as a one-man wrecking crew. (Judges
ch.14-16) And still got himself inducted into the Faith Hall
of Fame. (Heb. 13:esp. v.11)
Being a warrior of great strength was not accounted to Samson
as "wickedness".
You wrote:
>Jude 6
>And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left
their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest
darkness for the judgment of the great Day.
> Verse 7 starts:
> Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities,
which, in the same manner as they [the angels], indulged in sexual
immorality and pursued unnatural lusts, serve as an example by
undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way
these dreamers also defile the flesh, reject authority, and slander
the glorious ones.
>
>From these verses, we gain a great deal of information if
we allow the scriptures to mean what they say. It states that
the angels left heaven [proper dwelling] and in the same manner
as Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in sexual immorality and pursued
unnatural lust. These angels were then imprisoned in deepest
darkness for the judgment day. These angels, as the inhabitants
of Sodom and Gomorrah, reject authority, and slander the glorious
ones.
Response:
If, a = b, then b = a, (from basic algebra).
If we are going to take the angels from verse 6 and plug them
into verse 7, by saying that "in the same manner" means
equals , then would we not be required to take Sodom and Gomorrah
from verse 7 and plug them into the "reserved in eternal
chains under darkness" of verse 6? This would put dead humans
in the realm of living demons and Satan (Ecc. 9:5, 10; Job 1:6-7).
You wrote:
> From corroborating these two accounts given in II Peter
and Jude we can conclude that a number of angels left their proper
dwelling [heaven], despised authority and pursued unnatural lust.
Response:
Romans 2:24-27 discusses "lust", and "that which
is against nature" or unnatural, referring to homosexuality
and lesbianism. But Genesis 6 makes no mention of "sons
of God" attacking men or boys, only that they saw the daughters
of men . . . and they took them wives . . . . The word wives
shows a marriage relationship and we are told that angels don't
marry (Mat. 22:30).
I mentioned the question of, why is it always demons and females
last time so I won't repeat it here. [ See article, "Mamas,
Don't let your babies grow up to be Demons".]
You wrote:
> We have already proved that the phrase the "sons of
God" can only refer to either angels or God- fearing humans.
Response:
Job 1:6 and 2:1 make no distinction among the `sons of God' as
to which are `angels' and which are `demons'.
You wrote:
>Perhaps this is an area that I need growth in.
> I believe that if we allow the Scriptures to say what they
mean it will open up a whole new door to us.
Response:
We all should be growing in knowledge and understanding, however,
when the door opens, we do not expect to find a "stud"
demon behind it. ;-)
You wrote:
>This particular subject is really not important but if we
add up enough of these "twig issues" we get a whole
limb of the tree. If we were to omit all of the twig issues that
are contained in the Bible all we are left with is a trunk with
no limbs.
>
>To quote a friend of mine, "every page of the Bible
is as important as the page before." I do not deny that
there are weightier matters of the Bible, but I don't believe
that it is healthy to label all issues that are unimportant in
our eyes or are hard for us to understand as "twig issues."
I don't believe that this condescending attitude is commendable
or what God is trying to instill in His children.
Response:
I am not personally a respecter of tree parts (twigs, trunks,
roots) I like them all. Regarding the question of balance though,
twigs and trunks are like milk and meat. While I like milk, I
prefer substantial food (like meat) with condiments and garnish
on the side.
And in my opinion, anyone who has a condescending attitude should
go stand in the corner. :-(
You wrote:
> My hope is that we can all open our minds so that we can
allow God to show us the depth of His wisdom and knowledge, and
not allow our fears to control us.
Response:
What fears?
That there are/were/or will be rapist-demons roaming about?
That females may become "changed" into "male"
spirits?
That the Kingdom is a "males only" club?
That we don't have perfect understanding?
Perfect love casts out fear. (1 Jn. 4:18)
Mel Horne
[ Attack condescension, not people :-) ]
Copyright M.H. and G.H. 1996.
All rights reserved.
