Alaska pastor looks at gay idolatry and the coming of the antichrist

Will the Antichrist be a homosexual? One Alaska pastor believes the scriptures reveal  more than we think about the coming evil one.

Says Pastor Harmon of Independent Baptist Church in Wasila in a May 25th op-ed:

In answering this question, it is important to assert the question does not originate with me, lest someone out there think that I am bringing some new doctrine out to bolster the political climate. But as the study of Bible prophecy includes verbiage as to the behavior of the one called “that Wicked” by Paul in II Thessalonians, it is not only a legitimate question to ask, but also one to answer.

It is a legitimate question given the rise of homosexual marriage, how the gay church has thrown its weight behind it and what snippets about the antichrist the Bible reveals.

While the word “homosexual” is not in the Bible, the behavior of those who practice homosexuality, and God’s estimation of them, very definitely is. When the word came into existence I cannot tell you, but what we can say for sure is that when Noah Webster published his first dictionary in 1828, it was not included. This means that homosexuality is a modern word invented to replace the word Noah Webster did include, sodomy, defined as a crime against nature. This is historical revisionism in action.

The appearance of the word “homosexual” in the bible is a rather juvenile claim by defenders of gay christian theology but as the pastor points out the behavior is there as clear as day.  Homosexual conduct has always been tied to idolatry both in the OT and NT. Its roots are deeply entwined in the “religious” practices of the peoples whom God forbade his people to associate with. Specifically, the worship of Astoreth (also known as Aphrodite, Isis in their respective cultures) who was believed to have dual sexuality. The Apostle Paul carried forward this understanding by further revealing homosexuals worship each other’s bodies as gods, having rejected the true God.

Pastor Hamman points out something else perhaps not brought out before:

While the Genesis account does not graphically describe their sin, leading some to deny it as being the same as homosexuality, their sin is obviously just that by how it is described: lying with mankind as with womankind. What other conclusion can be reached when they want to “know” the men who were in Lot’s house, the same word the Bible uses in Genesis 4 in relation to the conception of Cain? And that Lot himself understood their intentions is clear; not only did he call such behavior wicked, but he also offered his virgin daughters as substitutes, which the men of Sodom refused.

And one more thing: Sodomy is the only sin for which God came down from heaven to destroy. Though God dealt with many other sins in various ways, there is no other for which he came down from heaven to verify and destroy.

Say what you will, but that is significant. Just like the only time scripture recording Christ “standing” at the right hand of God when the first martyr of the church Stephen was being murdered for telling the pharisees about their many sins.

The Alaska pastor makes a good case that the reason illicit sex has been so pervasive and profitable throughout time is due to the “desire for women”. Using Daniel 11:37 as a reference, he explains that the male antichrist will hold no regard for it. I believe Daniel 11:37 is a glimpse into the sexual nature of the antichrist as envisioned by Daniel. The word “desire” is from Hebrew chamad, which in context denotes lust associated with male/female sexuality.

From a lost perspective, the reason sex sells, pornography is profitable, and prostitution is “the world’s oldest profession” is mankind’s desire of women. From Christianity’s position, it is part of the glue for the bond of marriage and the propagation of a godly heritage. But homosexuality does not regard this — in their unbridled lusts they burn for their own gender.

But consider this: The time is ripe for such a leader. Indeed, it should not be surprising that the one who is against everything Biblical and Christian should be a partaker of so great a sin; there is no greater way to reject the Creator than to reject your gender and his design for it. And at what other time have we seen such perversion come out of the closets onto our streets, threatening violence if we do not accept their ways?

Is it any wonder that Revelation 13 says that this same Antichrist will make war with the saints of the tribulation, and overcome them? Are they not now readying themselves to make it illegal to “offend” them in any way, calling it hatred to preach against their sin? Is it because they love us? The time is ripe for such a man.

Is Pastor Hamman’s commentary just speculation or is it revelation? It is striking that the homosexual agenda (both political and religious) far surpasses any and all others in terms of its ferocity and aggression.

You should also read:

Why gay marriage and why now?

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “Alaska pastor looks at gay idolatry and the coming of the antichrist

  1. [quote]The Alaska pastor makes a good case that the reason illicit sex has been so pervasive and profitable throughout time is due to the “desire for women”. Using Daniel 11:37 as a reference, he explains that the male antichrist will hold no regard for it.[/quote]

    Uh unh, this verse is referring to the ‘desire of women’ in Daniel’s time. The desire of every Israeli woman was to be the mother of the messiah, Jesus. This verse means the AC will have to regard to Christ.

  2. Christian, you’ll have to explain your comment. There’s nothing in the passage which limits or alludes the “desire for women” as a wish for every Isreali woman to be the mother of Christ.

  3. “And at what other time have we seen such perversion come out of the closets onto our streets, threatening violence if we do not accept their ways?”

    I find this statement very offensive. A simple look at the facts will show that violent acts against gay people (often committed for religious reasons) greatly outnumber violent acts committed by gay people against heterosexuals. And let’s not forget that in many countries gay people are currently being imprisoned, terrorized, and tortured (in ways I will not describe here for decorum’s sake) simply for being gay.

    Yet despite all this, people like Pastor Ron Hamman have the audacity to claim that they, not gay people, are the victims. How utterly disgusting.

  4. phoenix, are you a gay activist? If so please come out of the closet so we can see why you say such apparently biased things without any proof. You say “a simple look at the facts”. What “facts”? Cite current FBI crime statistics to prove your assertion or else just abandon that whole line. This is a biblical discussion about what the pastor said. If you can refute that with something substantial, find somewhere else to spout your bias.

    Your next comment should comply with my request.

  5. We did a study of this passage in church and what it meant…the passage refers to the AC’s disregard for God, the Holy Spirit and Christ. The desires of women refers to Christ, the messiah. The desire of women in Daniel’s time was to be the mother of Jesus.

    I’ve seen this passage missconstrued that the AC would be gay, that he would have no desire for women. But who is the AC really against? It’s God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. Trying to remember, I think all three are referenced in the passage?

  6. Praise the LORD!

    Pastor Foster,
    I believe this brother in the LORD from Alaska is on to something. A marriage between 1 man and 1 woman for life is the greatest, simplest, symbolic, revelatory, and perfect representation in the earth to the image of CHRIST(man) to HIS Bride, the Church/Body of CHRIST(female). Any type of marriage outside of this LAW, is antichrist. Gay marriage is anti to CHRIST and HIS Bride.

  7. Hi Christian, let me be clear. Im not –and I dont think the author was either— saying the antichrist will be “gay”. That’s another train of thought.

    You are restating your previous point, but youre not providing any specific information to substantiate it. That’s what Im looking for.

  8. This is very thought provoking and it makes quite perfect sense.
    The first commandment to man was to be fruitful and multiply,
    The devil always tempts man to break Gods commandments. He tried to kill the righteous seed from the beginning(Cain killing Abel) he hates life, he hates babies being born because he hates God and is afraid of the potential that we have in Christ. I agree that Homosexuality will ne one of the antcichrist’s biggest agenda’s along with abortion rights most probably. he will keep killing seeds.

  9. [quote]The Alaska pastor makes a good case that the reason illicit sex has been so pervasive and profitable throughout time is due to the “desire for women”. Using Daniel 11:37 as a reference, he explains that the male antichrist will hold no regard for it. [/quote]

    This is interpreting scripture to say the AC won’t desire women.

    Here’s the verse…

    [quote]NIV He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.

    or BEB He will have no respect for the gods of his fathers or for the god desired by women; he will have no respect for any god: for he will put himself on high over all.

    or KJ Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.[/quote]

    You can see the flow…God, Jesus, or any deity, he (the AC) will have the pride of the enemy, thinking himself high over all. See how it doesn’t make sense to conotate it in the sexual sense.

  10. Christian each of the versions you cited contains the phrase “desire of women”, but you are saying that it has nothing to do with desiring women sexually.The word desire is translated lust which indeed does conote sexual perspective, not a desire to be the mother of Christ.

    I agree he will act as if he is above all, but you sound like you are shortsighting the extent of the antichrist’s hatred of people, particularly women whom Christ elevated to equality.

    Sexual union between two people of the opposite gender mirrors the nature of God (as EW noted) why wouldnt the antichrist’s promotion of homosexual marriage/unions mirror his hatred of women?

    I dont understand why you say it doesnt make sense.

  11. Phoenixmd,

    Ms. Prejean was asked by Perez Hilton does she believe that every state should legalize same-sex marriage; why or why not. Ms. Prejean gave one simple answer without a single threat nor a single defaming word about or towards the homosexual community: “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.” He lit into her with very vicious words the next day and she was defending herself for months after for a making a simple statement.

    There aren’t any “gay rights” groups coming to her defense to at least say that she has a right to her own opinion and we shouldn’t be trying to destroy her life because she exercised her right of free speech.

    I don’t condone violence against anyone, but there is a hypocritical double standard when it comes to a homosexual commiting violent acts against others. Homosexual crimes against others are mostly swept under the rug and not front page news as is a violent act against a homosexual. That’s where your “facts” are…..under the rug!!!!

  12. Because it’s all about Jesus, not the lust for women. Jesus is the author, He is fully man yet fully God, Jesus was there from the beginning, such a strong statement in Daniel, of course it would include Jesus.

    My pastor is very holy spirit inspired, his teachings, they bring the word to life in such a gifted way. I’ll ask him your question because I’m not much of a prophet, I haven’t studied, I haven’t delved into the times that the books were written as he has. He explains the people, the history, the background of the people at the times the scriptures were written, he was very clear that at that time, the desire of women were to be the mother of the messiah. We delve into OT and I’m so blessed to get this insight into the lives of those living in those times. Please forgive my inability to explain better…

  13. Hi Job, correct me if Im wrong but what you wrote was more telling off religious right preachers/pastors who hate homosexuals than actually looking at the embedded aspects of the antichrist.

    I will say again I am not saying the antichrist will be a homosexual. I think that is a trivial point to make. However one cannot deny the stark parallels of what we see occuring now with the homosexual movement (particularly the religious side of it) and the elements which can be identified as “antichrist”.

    Those elements can be found in most all perversions, particulary lying which is a perversion of the truth, but again, whether one hates homosexuals or not, Dan 11:37 certainly points towards that as an intriguing part of the antichrist’s nature.

    I dont think you can call that isolated, noncontextual reading given again the many foreshadows and explicit characterizations of homosexual practictioning in scripture.

  14. Pastor:

    And hey, when did you get too good for WordPress :-)!

    GCMW: Lawd, caint a brotha move up sometime. lol

    Now based on my puny puny knowledge of Hebrew, I do concede that “he will not have the desire of women” is the natural reading. Also, all the versions on http://bible.cc follow the KJV translation instead of the NIV (which you know that I mistrust) and the Bible In Basic English, which was translated by a comparative religion scholar (a theological liberal, although not necessarily on the issue of homosexuality).

    However, this is where the NIV, the Bible in Basic English, and Christian’s pastor have a good point. First, while “he will not have the desire of women” is the natural reading, “no regard for the one desired by women” is a very plausible option. Now I generally state that to resolve issues like these, the Septuagint is a good indicator, as it was translated by Jews, who knew – or had traditions and commentaries on – the original meanings. And the Septuagint says “nor the desire of women.”

    Still, the choice by the NIV and the Bible in Basic English to go with the 2nd alternative translation is justified by the context, which refers entirely to the religious beliefs and practices of the king of the north. This context starts in verse 36 and ends in verse 39.

    And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

    So, the king of the north will either claim to be greater than all gods or (more likely) claim that no god has any power over him and that he worships, fears, or respects no god (an atheist). He shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods: this means that the king of the north will reject, mischaracterize, refuse to respect, and blaspheme Jehovah (which remember is a Divine Name that refers to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all at once because it is plural). The next part refers to the fact that the king of the north will do very well for himself until he has fulfilled his role in prophecy.

    Neither shall he regard the god of his fathers (I disagree with the KJV’s capitalizing it, because Daniel has already mentioned the king of the north’s lack of regard for Jehovah) means that the king of the north will not follow the traditional religion of his tribe or nation. Now as to “the desire of women”, why did it not explicitly state “the god that women desire” if that is what it meant? To be fair, Hebrew, especially in written form, was very efficent. Unlike the Greeks, who loved to use words just for the sake of using them, the Hebrews used as few words as they could get away with. So if “the desire of women” was a common Hebrew idiom of the time to represent the gods worshiped by women (or more accurately, the fertility cults that pagan women of the time joined instead of or in addition to their tribal or national religions) then it certainly is not unfathomable that Daniel would have employed it. Especially when you consider that these feminine cults were adopted by Israel and was one of the reasons why God destroyed the nation and sent them into exile … Israel was doing things like worshiping the Holy Spirit as God’s wife/concubine and burning incense to the queen of heaven. Incidentally, the queen of heaven = Isis = Astarte = Ashtoreth = Catholic Virgin Mary = Easter. So, before Israel went into exile, they themselves were worshiping one of the most popular goddess cults. However, despite the popularity of goddess cults (think Greek and Roman deities like Venus, Daphne and the Artemis/Diana cult that got Paul into such trouble in Ephesus) they were never considered a national or tribal or “official” religion.

    After saying – according to the NIV – that the king of the north did not follow the feminine cults, next it says that the king of the north declared himself greater than all gods. (Now consider that claiming that the king of the north declares himself to be greater than women would really make no sense). Then it says that the king of the north will reject all gods and religions in favor of “the god of forces”, a term or idiom that means military (and perhaps economic and political also) might, and then it goes on to say that rather than serving any god or religion, the king of the north was only concerned with obtaining power and wealth.

    So why not just come out and say that the king of the north was an atheist? Simple. In the ancient near east that Daniel was a part of and writing to, and especially in the Jewish context, the idea of atheism was unthinkable. Virtually everyone worshiped a god or cult, and even those that were not specifically spiritual, religious or observant at least generally acknowledged a god, acknowledged representing a god, or acknowledged that he and his tribe/nation was represented by a god. And this was even more so for kings, because in this time it was generally acknowledged that kings fought for their gods, and gods fought for their kings, and physical military battles were reflections of (or proxies for) spiritual battles in the spirit realm. But this king of the north, as far as he was concerned, was having none of that. He wasn’t fighting for any god, no god was fighting on his behalf, as far as he was concerned gods did not exist, or if they did exist he did not need them because he was able to defeat other nations and their gods because his greatness and power in the natural realm was capable of overcoming the spiritual power that any god was capable of projecting in the natural realm. Now of course, after hundreds of years of Enlightenment rationalism and atheism, we would read that and think “big deal.” But in Daniel’s time, the very idea of a person being a successful political, economic and military ruler without some god being behind him and responsible for his success was extremely radical, and such a person would be considered a wonder, an aberration of the natural AND supernatural order, and such a person would cause people to both marvel and wonder at him and also greatly fear him.

    Then Daniel lowers the boom. He makes it clear that even though this king of the north does not acknowledge any god and does not believe himself to be representing any god or have any god fighting for him, the truth is that this fellow does in fact represent a god, fight for him, and have this god winning battles on his behalf after all without him even knowing it. Who is this god? Daniel does not identify him, but it will be “a strange god” that is not the god worshiped by his fathers (again, any national or tribal religion) or by women (meaning these feminine fertility cults, which incidentally were dominated and generally led by women but plenty of men followed them too) but a god of a completely different type or nature, someone not worshiped – or at least not worshiped knowingly or directly – by any of the pagan systems. Daniel states that this “strange god” that is not Dagon, Baal, Horus, Zeus or anything like that, will give the king of the north victories over “strong holds”, which means that he will defeat all of the other nations along with their gods and religions. And then Daniel states that after this happen, then will the king of the north, who prior to this was either an atheist or a god – scoffer (the difference being the former denies that any god exists and the latter acknowledges the existence of gods but openly mocks and defies them) will begin to acknowledge this “strange god” and when that happens the king of the north will become even more powerful! (That is, until the king of the south rebels against the king of the north, weakening him and setting in motion what eventually causes his defeat and death.)

    So, in this context, the sexual affection of the king of the south really doesn’t fit what honestly appears to be Daniel’s describing the religious views of the king of the north in a way that his Jewish audience can understand. So even if the King James Version and other translations are correct, I can understand any pastor or theologian who views “desire of women” to be Daniel’s idiomatic term for a feminine fertility cult similar to what of wicca today. That really is one of the problems with those of us who are strict literalists and prefer the strong literal translations like the KJV, NAS and YLT: the idioms trip us up at times. One of the reasons why I used to follow Messianic Jewish ministries was because they CLAIMED to know what was literal, what was idioms, and the “real meanings” of the idioms. But when I found out that the Messianic Jews generally get their opinions on such things from the Talmud, that was when I decided that I would rather rely on Christian tradition (for the early church did heavily interact with Jewish rabbis, especially Jerome, who consulted with Jewish scholars when translating the Old Testament Hebrew into Latin) than on the Talmud.

    That said, a lot of people believe that “the king of the north” was Alexander the Great. Who, of course, was homosexual.

  15. Pastor Foster:

    And by the way, you are correct, that post of mine (which I should mention was written before I entered school!) really does not add anything to this discussion. It is this long rant that is not useful or edifying or relevant to what you are talking about, so please delete my comment containing the link to it. I realized that when I read your post for the second time (because I have this nasty habit of speed reading, which I really need to abandon, I often have to read your posts twice before I understand what they really mean) and never should have put it up in the first place.

    Now as to my second post, that also really does not deal with the MAIN POINT of your post, but it does relate to what Christian was talking about in her comments, so that can stay in my humble opinion. Except, of course, I should point out that “the desire of women” very likely had nothing to do with wanting to be the mother of the Messiah and meant that the king of the north rejected Jehovah. First of all, Daniel adequately addressed that with “and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods” with the God of gods being none other than Jehovah, second why should a pagan non – Jewish king be expected to serve or acknowledge Jehovah to begin with, and third it was just, well, strange. Really strange.

  16. Thanks Job, you are always a good resident theologian, though thou dost protest to the contrary. 🙂

    I will acknowledge there may be an optional explanation for the “desire of women” clause, my point and the authors I believe, is that the homosexual aspect of it cannot be simply waved away because one doesnt want to engage. Thus, we are compelled to delve deeper and look at broader contextes (and idioms) to see whether or not it is so.

    The personage of the north king seems to be simular to the “prince of tyre” highlighted in Ezekiel 28. In fact, God tells the “prince” that he is even “wiser than Daniel” vs 3. After reading Ezekiel’s description of him, we know he is not an ordinary man or perhaps not a “man” at all, as he is said to have “covered” the throne of God. His true identity is satan. Likewise the king of the north mentioned by Daniel seems to fit the same bill in that certainly no mortal man could aspire to do what he is prophesied to do.

    Daniel’s writing as do other parts of the scripture have both an immediate, explicit meaning and with right division a delayed, implied meaning which gives the word of God its uniquely organic nature. So while Daniel does not for obvious immediate, explicit reasons say he is an atheist, still it is clear that what is described fits well into the contemporary expression of atheism. The “god” behind the king of the north that Daniel didnt know but described was again satan. In revelation, he gives power to the beast.

    Having said that I dont believe the antichrist will have a “sexual affection” per se, but that incorporated within evil nature is a hatred of women because of their ability to reproduce and give life. Misogyny may be a more accurate term. Im sure most homosexual men wont admit it, but there exists a misogynistic streak in that community. When one rejects (as Paul stated) the natural use (sexual) of a woman, what else can be deduced from it but hatred of God-given capabilities?

    Thanks for the footnote on Alexander the Great. True, on both accounts. And another foreshadow?

  17. “Im sure most homosexual men wont admit it, but there exists a misogynistic streak in that community.”

    A streak? More like a gigantic smoldering swath as wide and deep as any ocean. For example: ever hear of Perez Hilton? Perez Hilton HATES heterosexual women WITH A PASSION! And he is just one example.

    “Thanks for the footnote on Alexander the Great. True, on both accounts. And another foreshadow?”

    Yes, I consider Alexander the Great and the Seleucids in general as foreshadows of the beast. Especially when you consider also that many people regard the leopard in Daniel’s other vision as referring to Alexander the Great.

    “The personage of the north king seems to be simular to the “prince of tyre” highlighted in Ezekiel 28. In fact, God tells the “prince” that he is even “wiser than Daniel” vs 3. His true identity is satan. ”

    I agree. I also agree with the lesser versus greater fulfillment thing.

    “The “god” behind the king of the north that Daniel didnt know but described was again satan.”

    I agree with that as well. Now from the book of Job, we know that the Jews knew of Satan, though they rarely spoke of him in canonical literature. (Jewish tradition and extrabiblical literature is another story, which explains the many references to Satan as early as the gospels.) So Daniel’s either inability to grasp the identity of the power behind the beast or his unwillingness to explicitly state it is a mystery.

    I agree that the beast will be completely wicked, totally depraved. The question is whether he will be more or less an unpredictable fellow with strange obsessions like Hitler and other past foreshadows, or will he be single minded? (Hitler was sexually depraved, and many Nazis were homosexual or bisexual occultists.) It is a good question whether the beast will be so bent on destruction and conquering and power that he won’t even have time for much else, or whether his sexuality will add to his abomination. Now at the time that I wrote my rant that I unfortunately linked to in my comment, I was of the former opinion: the beast will be too single minded to bother with women or men. But now that I know more about the occult, you may well be right … homosexuality and the political/religious/cultural ideology around it, the worship of it, may well make the fellow more evil. After all, the homosexual culture certainly did so for the Greek culture that produced Alexander the Great and the Seleucids.

  18. gcmwatch,

    Here are some FBI statistics regarding anti-gay hate crimes, per your request:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-27-hatecrimes_N.htm

    http://www.freep.com/article/20081027/NEWS07/81027052/

    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecrime.pdf

    I shared these links with you because you asked, even though you could have easily found them on your own. But honestly, does it really make a difference? You seem to think that anything I have to say is suspect simply because I’m a “gay activist,” and even though I’ve given proof for my claims I’m sure you’ll find some way to dispute it, so what’s the point?

    Did you read the comment Charzetta3 made earlier? She said:

    “Homosexual crimes against others are mostly swept under the rug and not front page news as is a violent act against a homosexual. That’s where your “facts” are…..under the rug!!!!”

    I’d like to know why you haven’t asked Charzetta3 to provide sources for her claim. You asked me, but not her. Isn’t that a little…biased?

  19. gcmwatch,
    I agree with your opinion of Brother Pastor resident theologian Job. Thanks for that insight!

  20. In BEB: He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. Dan 11:37

    Although the pastor’s insight seems quite thrilling and exciting, the version above indicates that He will not regard the ‘one desired by women’, which I think justifies Christian’s assertion that the scripture was referring to Christ.

  21. Good question: what’s the point?

    Well phoenix, you created that strawman so I had no responsibility to go chasing after statistics to prove or disprove something that you brought up which has nothing to do with the post. Ever heard of stay on topic?

    But since you went there, there is NO CONTENTION on my part that homosexuals are murdered or have violent acts committed against them. Such is the nature of crime in this country. But so do black children, women, hispanics, whites, asians, homeless, prostitutes, convenience store clerks, the elderly as so forth. Homosexuals are no special class of people although that seems to be what you are implying. Are they murdered in greater numbers that other demographics: NO, and the statistics bear that out. So what are you so offended about?

    I hope you get my point. If you dont, that’s okay too.

  22. Job,

    Excellent evaluation! I was going to ask did anyone know what the the Talmudic sources said regarding this or even what the Targums stated. Those would be helpful in at least deciphering what the Jews thought Daniel was saying.

    So far as the regard for women phrase, I’ll even add another twist…The twist of Islam. Islam, I believe, is revamped Baalism. I have plenty of sound reasons for saying that which I won’t go into hee.

    Islam has supplanted the “Fathers” with Ishmael while claiming the “Fathers”. Their religion does not have “regard” for women in the social, political and religious sense.

    Now that may be reading what currently exists now into something that was stated in the past, but since we all know that the scripture was prophetic and was talking about something that didn’t exist when Daniel or his scribe wrote it, there should be no problem with that type of understanding as long as it’s sound.

    I also agree Elder Foster, this scripture in no way eliminates the anti-Christ from being a homosexual or having an agenda in which women are disregarded sexually and materially. I know we can talk about scriptural transitions of the description, but if we think that a person can hate and devalue God in pratically every way and yet have the moral compass to value women and mankind in particularly in it’s place and for its rightful purpose, that’s even more of a streach in the imagination for me. I could easily see how the anti-Christ would hate women whose seed would bruise satan’s head(Gen. 3:15) and not be one to proliferate the human race.

    Thanks

  23. Odinaka, I got what Christian was trying to say, I just didnt see that in his explanations. Which version is that you cited and does this becomes a matter of how one version over another phrases it? To me, that can be a slippery slope to walk on when seeking answers in scripture. BTW, Im not blaming you, just making a comment 🙂

    Maybe we should revisit the which Bible is right question again?

  24. gcmwatch,

    I did not create a strawman. I noticed a very biased comment that I found in Hamman’s article and gave evidence to balance it. If you consider that to be too far off topic, that’s fine. Earlier you said, “If you can refute that with something substantial, find somewhere else to spout your bias.” Well, I did, so I won’t bother you anymore with facts and common sense; I know they aren’t welcome on this blog.

    Still waiting for you to ask Charzetta3 to provide evidence for her claim….

  25. Keep waiting. I answer when you tell me if you are a gay activist.

    Youre playing dumb, phoenix. I was referring you refuting the biblical thesis Pastor Hamman put forth. Did you look at your “facts”? So-called sexual orientation crimes: 1, 265. Wow, what a staggering amount of crimes!

    Contrast that with 3,870 race related crimes. Who should really be complaining the most?

    Please take your foolishness somewhere else. I have little tolerance for it.

  26. Job is a prophet!! 🙂 That is a blessing, and a really awesome gift.

    I’m not a he, I’m a she and my desire is for Christ to come back SOON.

    Thinking…Daniel was writing at the time that the Babylonians were taking Jews to be their slaves. Do you think that women might be desiring the Messiah to make an appearance? Like we do today?

    On bibles, I prefer the new king james to other versions. I like to grab them all though when there is any question to what is being said.

    Sorry if I got off subject. Back to topic…

  27. To GMCWATCH,

    Sorry it took so long. I know you’re not defending me because I know that you know that righteousness doesn’t need to be defended. But thanks for your wisdom!!!!!

    To Phoenix,

    I see that Christian and I have the same problem with the names.
    I’m a man. “Charzetta” is the name of an unborn girl of mines.
    “I am a boy, Damon…I mean Phoenix.”

    Here are a few links you can look up also (the same number you provided, 3)

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=338038

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=313074

    http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9498/CFI/family/

    Now, as gmcwatch said, what’s the point? Homosexuals murder people and homosexuals are murdered. All demographics share that same “fate.” When you mention a claim in order to prove a point, make sure it’s not, as you call it…”BIASED”.

    The point of the discussion is the promotion and political progression of homosexuality and the “MAN of SIN” or “BEAST” (as I believe the bible accurately calls him) possibly being homosexual. And admit it or not, I believe the purpose of “sexual orientation” being added to the hate crime bill AFTERWARDS is to get a trial on a preacher saying that homosexuality is a sin, keep it out of national news, get a conviction in order to set a national precedence, and scare christians in this country to be quiet.

  28. Gcmwatch,

    I’m not really sure what kind of answer you want. When you ask if I’m a gay activist, do you want to know whether I’ve marched in gay pride parades? Have I petitioned my local government for pro-gay legislation? Have I donated to the HRC and other gay rights organizations? Have I protested outside of courthouses and churches? Do I condone and agree with everything the gay community says and does? Do I think churches and faith-based groups should be forced to accept homosexuality? Do I believe that anyone who votes against same-sex marriage is a hateful bigot? Am I a liberal atheist who just wants to shove my “lifestyle” and beliefs down your throat whether you like it or not? Do I believe that being gay is better than being straight? Do I have a rainbow flag waving outside my apartment window? Do I have a “civil marriage is a civil right” bumper sticker on my car?

    The answer to all of the above is no.

    I do, however, think that gay couples should be recognized and protected under the law, gay servicemen and women should be allowed to serve openly in the military, gay couples should be allowed to raise children, gay men should be allowed to donate blood, businesses should not be allowed to fire or discriminate against gay employees because of their sexual orientation, etc. I don’t define myself according to my social/political positions, but I do occasionally voice them on various blogs because I think the debate is interesting and I like hearing what others have to say. Other than that, I don’t really do anything that you might typically associate with gay activism, so I don’t consider myself a gay activist.

    But if you think that having certain pro-gay opinions is enough to make one a gay activist, then I guess you have the answer you were looking for. And if that’s true, then maybe you should stop looking at people in terms of which category you think they belong to and start looking at them as individuals.

    I hope that answers your question.

    GCMW: Yes, it does.

Comments are closed.