Topic of "angels having sex with human females".

Do you believe that angels would have the ability to have sex with earth females, and as a result, the females giving offspring of giants?

I'm [actually] having a discussion with christians who believe this actually occured, and when I brought up the fact that the angels would have to have the "equipment" in order to get them pregnant, they pulled out the "god is mysterious" card.

Anyway, what is your thoughs on this topic?

This is by far the most common explanation for the existence of the "pagan gods" which Christian literalists have come up with. That they are not gods at all but, Nephilim who somehow managed to survive the flood. Yes, that flood whose primary purpose was to wipe the Nephilim out?

Yes, . . and they would say it was because these angels again had sex with earth women.

I see what you're saying about how this story somehow got confused with the pagan god myths. Yet because the BIBLE says it happened, then they had to come up with this mystery.

Why wouldn't they have the equipment or be genetically compabitable?
assuming the same creator-He's going to use the same template

I've never heard this as the origin for pagan gods; CS Lewis just assumes representative spirit beings are part of the Landscape ie... there are little bacchusses and pans running around which are plato-like images of something going in the greater universe.

But back to the angels, whats your real objection? They can manipulate physical form and therefore could do the same with DNA

Here are some of the relevant scriptures:

Ge 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

notice verse 4-it happened more than once
the corrupted gene pool was the reason for the flood-with Noah bueing the last pure line-buvt its also ther origin story for the giants the children of Israel faced-the Anakim-until David and his jwarriors end the last of their line

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Just to illustrate who the sons of God were. This does not necessarily mean this is the same group of Angels that rebelled with Satan. Compare these two NT passages:

Re 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
Re 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

vs

Jude 1:6 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. {first estate: or, principality}
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.
The second passage is thought to a reference to Angels that had sex with humans because its thematically linked with sexual sin and Sodom.

The idea being here that Angels are male in their true form and sexless through will power alone.
Compare to the word's of Jesus:
Mt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Some assume this means angels are sexless beings; but the ressurrected humans are not-why would the angels be different?

Finally just a verse to show thatv angels can assume many forms
Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

The ONLY reason why males have . . . "the appendage" . . . is for sexual reproduction. Are you going to sum up your argument that angels have this organ. . . as well as sperm production?

This natural world, and how lifeforms function, are a result of them BEING here. Life must propogate through specific means. For angels to have the same function, then you must conclude that they are just as flawed as we are, requiring certain functions for survival, and that they use the same functions in the heavenly realm. . . . .else, there is no REASON for them to possess such anatomy.

OK as a pagan I really don't see the problem. The gods had mortal lovers, spawning the line of kings and the blood of great champions. The Valkyrie were also known to take lovers amongst the great men of their age, as were Selkie and other semi-mortals, the messengers and intermediaries of the gods. Being tasked with walking between the worlds, and being closest to the mortals they walked among they had the ability to interact with them on every personal level, including love tragicly unrequited, or blessedly requited with long successful lines resulting.

To me the God of the folk of Israel is just the god of another folk, and I see no reason why his angels would be any less able to find love and leave offspring amongst the humans.

Our lore, like the Celt and Greek, Roman, Persian, Hindu, Chinese and Japanese, African and American is filled with the deeds of one demigod squaring off against another. Living amongst humans, they partook of our feuds, loyalties, ambitions, fears, pains, trials, and yes death. To partake of mortal essence, even in part, is to become an initiate in the mysteries of death.

They walked among us when the earth was new, and our scattered tribes needed guidance in our first halting steps upon the land. As we grew strong and plentiful, they no longer came among us, and if their blood no longer courses full in the viens of any, it certainly taints the blood of all by now.

Honestly, sometimes we can be such snobs when it comes to Christians, as if because they so frequently scorn our mysteries that they themselves must have none. In truth, my only quarrel with some Christians is they attempt to deny me my own mysteries and practices; I will grant that the god of Israel can match the Aesir in his interference in the early development of his twelve tribes, and was no more shy than my own gods about letting a little of that divine blood enrich his people in times of great trial (on purpose), or great acheivement (by desire of beings moved by mortals transcending their limitations and reaching for greatness).

I would suggest we limit ourselves in assumptions though. Just because a being may take mortal form and share mortal parts and urges in the doing, does not mean that limits the being to those desires and needs alone. A selkie can be a woman, or a seal, or a spirit of the sea. An angel can be flesh, or shining spirit. A Valkyrie may take mortal form and bear children, age and die, or may soar above the battlefield in shining splendor, her form breaking armies in terror before her. Just because they can pee standing up and scratch their danglies in the morning does not mean that they share our limted perspective. We are just mortal, they can choose to join us, or choose to be something other ( I do not say greater).

I have sex with human females as often as I can manage it--why do you ask?

DeavonReye wrote:Do you believe that angels would have the ability to have sex with earth females, and as a result, the females giving offspring of giants?

I'm [actually] having a discussion with Christians who believe this actually occurred, and when I brought up the fact that the angels would have to have the "equipment" in order to get them pregnant, they pulled out the "god is mysterious" card.

Anyway, what is your thoughts on this topic?

RE: the Nephilim and Angels having Sex

In the New Testament, the phrase "sons of God" refers to "Christians" and not other-worldly beings. ( "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:26)

However, in the OT, the phrase does refer to angels ("Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them." Job 1:6 and "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7.)

Given the minimal amount of data given, iow, a tiny spattering of Biblical scriptural references, there is no way to make no definite statement on who the Nephilim really were, or if Angels can, or can not, have sex with human beings. SO, we are left with personal theories, iow .... our own opinions.... which is what the Christians you are conversing with are trying to do.


As a Christian, I have no issues with human opinion, or I wouldn't be posting here. And, luckily, our theology is not dependant upon these topics. (whew)

God is very mysterious, btw.

DeavonReye wrote:The ONLY reason why males have . . . "the appendage" . . . is for sexual reproduction. Are you going to sum up your argument that angels have this organ. . . as well as sperm production?

This natural world, and how lifeforms function, are a result of them BEING here. Life must propogate through specific means. For angels to have the same function, then you must conclude that they are just as flawed as we are, requiring certain functions for survival, and that they use the same functions in the heavenly realm. . . . .else, there is no REASON for them to possess such anatomy.

If you read the Hebrew scriptures carefully and without pre-conception-the Creator has same appendage
made in His image/ walked in the cool of the eve ect...

and sure there is-to be tempted but resist

And I propose that this story like so many others represents a primitive people's attempt to explain something mysterious that they observed--maybe dark-skinned, dark-eyed women giving birth to lighter, blue eyed babies after an invasion from the north? Remember how the Aztecs assumed the Spanish conquerors were gods because their skins were so much lighter, and they had armor and weaponry that were marvels to the Aztecs?

Most of the sources I've read regarding this portion of the OT say that there are various theories as to what the origin of this account may be, but no one today really has Clue #1 what it refers to or what is meant by it.

Sometimes, I think that we ought to apply to much of the Christian Bible what F. Scott Fitzgerald remarked when asked what he intended by the various symbols in The Great Gatsby. He reportedly said something like, "I thought I was just trying to tell a good story."

An additional thought: Not only have we not a single original manuscript of any portion of the Christian scriptures, but we also have no idea whatsoever how much each story may have been embellished, corrected, altered, etc. before it was ever initially recorded.

Plus, we have the additional problems of not only having no idea what the original writers may have been writing about--what incidents inspired these accounts--but also what these writers' contexts and meanings were for various phrases and words.

Translation of modern writings is subject enough to significant imprecision and misunderstanding, much less our thinking we've any clear sense whatsoever what these ancient writers were referring to and what they meant translated multiple times over the millennia since they wrote.

Consequently, I cannot begin to fathom how anyone can consider these writings true in any sense but the highly subjective metaphorical one.

DeavonReye wrote:The ONLY reason why males have . . . "the appendage" . . . is for sexual reproduction

I've been using mine wrong all along.

DotNotInOz wrote:An additional thought: Not only have we not a single original manuscript of any portion of the Christian scriptures, but we also have no idea whatsoever how much each story may have been embellished, corrected, altered, etc. before it was ever initially recorded.

Plus, we have the additional problems of not only having no idea what the original writers may have been writing about--what incidents inspired these accounts--but also what these writers' contexts and meanings were for various phrases and words.

Translation of modern writings is subject enough to significant imprecision and misunderstanding, much less our thinking we've any clear sense whatsoever what these ancient writers were referring to and what they meant translated multiple times over the millennia since they wrote.

Consequently, I cannot begin to fathom how anyone can consider these writings true in any sense but the highly subjective metaphorical one.

Hear, hear!

Having been on WoW for awhile again, and reading the Trade station (since split off so I don't have to see it), I would have to say that boys and men, when they get together, often talk about sex, bodily functions and food (that comes in last). I'm just surprised that the bible doesn't contain more fart jokes.

Besides, since God etched the TC's onto the stone tablets which Moses took down Mt. Sinai to display to the Israelites, wouldn't God have had the capability to produce books in the language of each country or people of the world with no need for multiple translations? Or more directly, simply convey to every person what God wanted done?

The standard Christian dodge is that God chose for some reason not to do anything that might interfere in human doings after biblical times.

The more logical explanation is that this deity doesn't exist, and that the biblical accounts are the result of primitive human attempts to explain things they couldn't understand or hadn't enough knowledge to explain.

Even in Biblical times, God preference was always to use human instruments- God sent the plagues; but they was preceded by a human messenger
the OT was God's word to the Hebrew peoples/ the Hebrew people were God's word to the Nations

I am still unsure as to the objections in the original OP-if a diety takes on human form-why wouldn't it be the entire human form?

as to why the story was recorded-it stands as a warning-as a Son of God working in a fallen earth-you will be tempted to blend into the surrounding society rather than transform it

DotNotInOz wrote:An additional thought: Not only have we not a single original manuscript of any portion of the Christian scriptures, but we also have no idea whatsoever how much each story may have been embellished, corrected, altered, etc. before it was ever initially recorded.

Plus, we have the additional problems of not only having no idea what the original writers may have been writing about--what incidents inspired these accounts--but also what these writers' contexts and meanings were for various phrases and words.

Translation of modern writings is subject enough to significant imprecision and misunderstanding, much less our thinking we've any clear sense whatsoever what these ancient writers were referring to and what they meant translated multiple times over the millennia since they wrote.

Consequently, I cannot begin to fathom how anyone can consider these writings true in any sense but the highly subjective metaphorical one.

I completely agree with this. It is the same as the "picking up snakes" or "drinking poison" verses that were not found in earlier manuscripts. Being that the New Testament was written well after the Old, . . . and since this error found its way in, . . . how much MORE error could be found in these older texts?

DotNotInOz wrote:Besides, since God etched the TC's onto the stone tablets which Moses took down Mt. Sinai to display to the Israelites, wouldn't God have had the capability to produce books in the language of each country or people of the world with no need for multiple translations? Or more directly, simply convey to every person what God wanted done?

The standard Christian dodge is that God chose for some reason not to do anything that might interfere in human doings after biblical times.

The more logical explanation is that this deity doesn't exist, and that the biblical accounts are the result of primitive human attempts to explain things they couldn't understand or hadn't enough knowledge to explain.

I do believe that Yahweh exists and has grown, and changed and matured over time, just as beings do and societies too. I believe that the Hebrews borrowed him from another culture and that he was their tribal war god for many hundreds of years. As cultures and people do, who are closer to their gods, they wove myths about him and his personal interactions with their members. He was very much a part of their lives. The powerful in the tribe created laws they claimed were god-given because it helps give them the authority to enforce them, keep them in power, disenfranchise other genders or people, steal other people's land, enslave others, enrich themselves, put their lover/children in power positions and kick out old lovers/children, etc. When people think and study about these things in other people's cultures and study other people's gods, this seems very logical and clear to them. When it comes to their own myths and gods, that's a different story! Then it is All Real and True.

That's quite a disconnect. Much better to have your own relationship with the god you believe in, don't you think?

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:

DeavonReye wrote:The ONLY reason why males have . . . "the appendage" . . . is for sexual reproduction

I've been using mine wrong all along.

Well played.

What I'm saying is that, outside of sexual reproduction, there is no good reason for men to have any length/growth at all. Nor would they have reason for a scrotum to produce sperm.

gillyflower wrote:I do believe that Yahweh exists and has grown, and changed and matured over time, just as beings do and societies too. I believe that the Hebrews borrowed him from another culture and that he was their tribal war god for many hundreds of years. As cultures and people do, who are closer to their gods, they wove myths about him and his personal interactions with their members. He was very much a part of their lives. The powerful in the tribe created laws they claimed were god-given because it helps give them the authority to enforce them, keep them in power, disenfranchise other genders or people, steal other people's land, enslave others, enrich themselves, put their lover/children in power positions and kick out old lovers/children, etc. When people think and study about these things in other people's cultures and study other people's gods, this seems very logical and clear to them. When it comes to their own myths and gods, that's a different story! Then it is All Real and True.

Another well stated post. I've thought this, too, for some time. They created a "fear base" in what they claimed god was commanding so that the people wouldn't question their authority.

DeavonReye wrote:They created a "fear base" in what they claimed god was commanding so that the people wouldn't question their authority.

We also don't know to what extent people other than the priests and scribes could read in biblical times. Written material was precious and not easily acquired. So, the learned could pretty much tell the uneducated whatever the former felt like passing off as truth.

I think it important not to forget that well into the latter 19th and early 20th centuries, nomadic and agricultural peoples often were not literate. My paternal grandparents had marginal educations. They both could read and write, but I recall my dad saying that he knew some people who couldn't write their own names when he was growing up in the 1920's. And this was in the central U.S.!

I think it quite likely as Gilly implies that those who taught the illiterate what scriptures said represented the content however they thought most advantageous to themselves, which is not to say that such practices were commonplace but occurred more often than we'd prefer to think, I bet.

As a side note, written English, prior to dictionaries and the emphasis on uniform spelling, was phonetic. In other words it wasn't meant to be read, it was meant to be spoken and heard, and spelling fluctuated by what people thought they heard or what they thought the word really was or even if they thought that another spelling would be clearer. (If you want examples, think about all the ways Kennedy, Canady, etc can be spelled.) That is one way "errors" or changes were introduced into manuscripts.

gillyflower wrote:As a side note, written English, prior to dictionaries and the emphasis on uniform spelling, was phonetic. In other words it wasn't meant to be read, it was meant to be spoken and heard, and spelling fluctuated by what people thought they heard or what they thought the word really was or even if they thought that another spelling would be clearer. (If you want examples, think about all the ways Kennedy, Canady, etc can be spelled.) That is one way "errors" or changes were introduced into manuscripts.

Quite so, Gilly.

In fact, spelling was only somewhat standardized by the time of the American Declaration of Independence. Books were still quite expensive up until more mechanized printers became common in the 19th century, and thus, dictionaries weren't commonly available before then. As a result, spelling was rather freeform until public schools and widespread availability of dictionaries and grammars could begin to produce more spelling uniformity.

What I think really fascinating is that we've no idea really who all the people were who wrote the various segments of the Christian NT.

Most biblical scholars think on the basis of structural and other linguistic similarities that several of the Pauline books were written by the same person who's generally believed to be the Saul who became known as Paul after his conversion.

As far as I know, however, we don't know exactly who this person was and aren't certain that he did in fact write the NT books attributed to him, so much presumably biographical information comes from tradition arising from legends spun off the biblical accounts.

One very intriguing theory I read in a book on gnosticism speculated that the NT writings, especially the letters and Acts might well be mystery school composition exercises. It was commonplace for students in the philosophy and religious schools of the time to write their ideas as if they were a hero figure or other notable person even to affixing that person's name as author. Imitating the "letters of" is sometimes used in composition classes today.

I've long thought that there might be something to that idea as many of the NT books as are unattributed except by tradition. It amuses me no end to consider that the literalists might be taking as God's law the composition exercise of some long-dead student.