[Note: This article contains some graphic descriptions of an app used in the gay culture. Please read with care, as this may not be appropriate for everyone. –Ed]
The “tolerance movement” has morphed into absurdity. Like the piano tie and the mullet (business in the front, party in the back), moral relativism is quickly becoming just another regrettable trend. Still, like treasure hunters, the trend-setters remain immovably (and illogically) committed to discovering – or simply inventing – and then subsequently proclaiming the next great cause. For those whose self-esteem is tied to their devotion to a cause, any amount of social progress, healing, and reconciliation can be a curse, exposing an internalized fear within the crusader’s soul of having a purposeless, ordinary life. So, the crusade must go on…….. and on, and on, and on, and on.
At times it appears, with each new day, the tolerance champions devolve further and further into a state of sheer madness while in search of a cause, flailing in their attempts of remaining relevant. While the seemingly nonsensical devotions and incongruous thinking patterns of the day’s social justice warriors may, at first thought, bring momentary amusement to the average person, the reality of the situation is quite tragic. It is tragic both for the forlorn, over-zealous campaigner himself and for the public at large.
Case in point: DaddyBear, a gay “sugardaddy” hook-up app and its creators are being hounded by some in the LGBTQIA-LMNOP-XYZ community for excluding HIV positive males from its “hook-up” pool. According to Queerty, “DaddyBear is a new hookup, er, dating app that connects ‘wealthy gay daddies’ with ‘healthy gay bears.’” According to one DaddyBear representative who commented on the Queerty article, “If you are worried about meeting gay men who are living with HIV, then you can feel relieved with our App because we are trying our best to make sure that all users you meet will be healthy and without HIV.” Oh, the intolerance!
DaddyBear’s CEO, “Justin,” explained, “No one would like to date people living with HIV unless he is living with it. Most gay sugar daddies are not living with HIV, so they don’t want to bring home any unwanted souvenirs. However, we support that gay men living with HIV have the right to date with other gays with HIV. But many rich and successful gay sugar daddies do not want to date with gay men living with HIV, which is the reason why we launched this app to meet their needs.” According to DaddyBear, “We should face a fact that gay men are much more likely to get HIV through unprotected sex than average straight guy.” In addition, DaddyBear described other “hook-up” apps which, quite often, don’t share a person’s HIV status as being “very dangerous.”
Thus, the “triggering” began… Woe to thee!
In an article at LGBTQ Nation entitled, “WTF? This sugardaddy hookup app says it’s for men ‘not living with HIV’” author Mark S. King laments the app’s “stated position on the HIV status of those daddies and bears” as being “frightening,” and went on to describe the attitude of DaddyBear’s CEO as akin to having “recently emerged from a cryogenic freeze from 1986.” Matthew Rodriguez, in an article at INTO, insinuated that DaddyBear’s stance on HIV was ironic and misinformed. Both authors regressed into desperate justifications for their own apparent lackadaisical attitudes towards HIV, presenting the claim that “undetectable” equals “noninfectious,” aka “non-transmittable.”
Furthermore, the apps’ apparent serophobic attitudes have been condemned among DaddyBear’s iTunes reviews, with one user giving the app a dismal 1 star rating for being a “discriminatory app.” (review shown below)
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the “daddies” of DaddyBear have valid reasons to be cautious. The April 25, 2017, report by the CDC entitled, “HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men” offers startling statistics on the continued HIV epidemic among America’s homosexual and bisexual male population. As summed up by Life Site News below:
— Gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 92 percent of new HIV diagnoses among all men in their age group and 27 percent of new diagnoses among all gay and bisexual men;
— Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men made up an estimated 2 percent of the population, but 55 percent of people living with HIV in the United States in 2013;
— From 2005 to 2014, HIV diagnoses decreased in the United States by 19 percent overall but increased 6 percent among all gay and bisexual men;
— 1 in 6 gay and bisexual men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime, including 1 in 2 black gay and bisexual men, 1 in 4 Hispanic gay and bisexual men, and 1 in 11 white gay and bisexual men;
— Nearly 1 in 7 gay and bisexual men living with HIV are unaware they have it;
— Anal sex is the riskiest type of sex for getting or transmitting HIV. Receptive anal sex is 13 times as risky for acquiring HIV as insertive anal sex.
The tolerance and moral relativism surrounding a life-threatening, sexually transmitted disease so forcefully pushed by some in the LGBTQIA-infinitum community pales in comparison to their rabid, opportunistic, carnivorous determination to label all those who wish to remain disease-free as “frightening” and “discriminatory.” Trend-setters set trends. They care not of the consequences that follow.
So, yet again, the responsibility for spreading truth – even in such basic areas as public health – fall to all of us who truly care about humanity, who don’t abuse our own minds with moral relativism, and who are brave enough to stand up and short, “Stop this nonsense!” After all, “In times of universal deceit- telling the truth is a revolutionary act” (unknown author).
Does Matthew 22:29-30 indicate Jesus was referencing the Book of Enoch?
Extra-Biblical texts such as the Book of Enoch are often frowned upon by churches. Some see 1 Enoch as fake. Others say it’s a good historical reference but not inspired. The Ethiopian Bible includes it as scripture. Should we read it?
To understand the answer to this question, we need to consider three things. First, it was referenced as holy by many of the early church fathers, but was excluded from official canon. Second, Enoch is referenced multiple times in the Bible: Genesis 4 and 5, Luke 3:37, Hebrews 11:5, and Jude 1:14. Third, Jesus makes a statement in Matthew 22:29-30 that references “scripture” but what he is saying is only found in 1 Enoch.
Many who oppose the validity of Enoch say that it was written after the Book of Jude because the it includes the quote that Jude references, but fragments of Enoch were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which most scholars date to before Jude was born.
The scripture in question is Matthew 22:29-30:
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Nowhere in the 66 Books of the Bible does it say angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. What did Jesus mean when he said “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures” in reference to the angels not marrying?
Here is 1 Enoch 15:5-7:
5. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6. But you were ⌈formerly⌉ spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.
As with anything regarding extra-Biblical texts, I must urge caution. Many who believe 1 Enoch is authentic refute the authenticity of 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch. Then, there’s the question of inspiration and protection of the text. Many Christians believe the Bible has been able to survive and flourish despite so many attempts to disrupt it is because it has been protected over the millennia. If that’s the case, why was Enoch not included the whole time?
The answer to this question, to those who believe in its authenticity, may be found in the first two verses of the manuscript.
1 The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be 2 living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said -Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is 3 for to come. Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them:
If Enoch is real, it’s meant for a later generation living in the day of tribulation. If it’s a fake, then it’s intended to deceive those in the end times. Either way, it’s understandable that it would not be included in most Bibles.
I tend to believe 1 Enoch is legitimate, but not to the point that I would teach on it. Not yet. Much more prayer and study is required before I would ever risk misleading anyone.
Nevertheless, the reference in Matthew 22 is compelling.
The ‘church fathers’ and the Book of Enoch
This article first appeared in Torah Driven Life. The site appears to be down currently, so we’re including this page here for reference.
The following is a compilation of attestations to the authenticity and acceptance of the Book of Enoch as Scripture by the fathers of the early church. This list is, by no means, an exhaustive list of quotations from the church fathers, but is rather just skimming of the surface. At any rate, the case is clear, that even beyond Jude’s open reference to it, the Book of Enoch had some degree of acceptance in early Christianity.
Tertullian and the Book of Enoch
Tertullian, an early church father and founder of Latin Christianity, wrote a few positive things concerning the Book of Enoch. Tertulian writes as follows in his 2nd century work, On the Apparel of Women I 3:1-3.
“I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order of action to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason for rejecting it, let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather’s ‘grace in the sight of God,’ (Genesis 6:8) and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of his preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition of things made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.
“If Noah had not had this conservative power by so short a route, there would still be this consideration to warrant our assertion of the genuineness of this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit’s inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.
“But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that ‘every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.’ (2 Timothy 3:16) By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that very reason, just like all the other portions nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.” (Jude 1:14-15)
Origen and the Book of Enoch
Origen appeals to the Book of Enoch as having the same canonical authority as he does the Book of Psalms. He writes as follows in De Principiis IV.
“But some one will perhaps inquire whether we can obtain out of Scripture any grounds for such an understanding of the subject. Now I think some such view is indicated in the Psalms, when the prophet says, ‘My eyes have seen your imperfection;’ (Psalm 139:16) by which the mind of the prophet, examining with keener glance the first principles of things, and separating in thought and imagination only between matter and its qualities, perceived the imperfection of God, which certainly is understood to be perfected by the addition of qualities. Enoch also, in his book, speaks as follows: ‘I have walked on even to imperfection;’ which expression I consider may be understood in a similar manner, viz., that the mind of the prophet proceeded in its scrutiny and investigation of all visible things, until it arrived at that first beginning in which it beheld imperfect matter existing without ‘qualities.’ For it is written in the same book of Enoch, ‘I beheld the whole of matter;’ which is so understood as if he had said: ‘I have clearly seen all the divisions of matter which are broken up from one into each individual species either of men, or animals, or of the sky, or of the sun, or of all other things in this world.’”
These quotations which he attributes to Enoch are not found in the Ethiopic text of the Book of Enoch, upon which our modern translations are based. There are, however, two sufficient reasons to believe that Origen is still quoting from the Book of Enoch. First, notice how Origen mishandled Psalm 139:16, “My eyes have seen your imperfection,” as if to indicate that God had imperfections which could be seen. Psalm 139:16 is more accurately translated, “Mine unformed substance Thine eyes saw.” (YLT) So it is very possible that Origen was simply incorrectly quoting passages that do exist in the Ethiopic text. Second, it is known from the discovery of Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of Enoch found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran that there are large portions of text that are not present in the Ethiopic manuscripts. (See 4Q209 and 4Q211) So it is also possible that he was quoting from portions of Enoch that may have not been translated into the Ethiopic text, and hence have not survived to today.
Irenaeus and the Book of Enoch
Irenaeus, in his work The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 18, records a condensed retelling of Enoch 6-8. He does this without directly citing the Book of Enoch, yet the citation here is unmistakable.
“And for a very long while wickedness extended and spread, and reached and laid hold upon the whole race of mankind, until a very small seed of righteousness remained among them: and illicit unions took place upon the earth, since angels were united with the daughters of the race of mankind; and they bore to them sons who for their exceeding greatness were called giants. And the angels brought as presents to their wives teachings of wickedness, in that they brought them the virtues of roots and herbs, dyeing in colours and cosmetics, the discovery of rare substances, love-potions, aversions, amours, concupiscence, constraints of love, spells of bewitchment, and all sorcery and idolatry hateful to God; by the entry of which things into the world evil extended and spread, while righteousness was diminished and enfeebled.”
The Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas and the Book of Enoch
The Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas is frequently ranked among the Apostolic Fathers, i.e. the founding documents of gentile Christianity. This letter contains several blatant quotations from the Book of Enoch, citing it as “Scripture” in Barnabas 16:5-6.
“Again, it was made manifest that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be delivered up. For the Scripture says, ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days that the Lord shall deliver the sheep of His pasture, and the sheep-fold, and their tower to destruction.’ (Condensed from Enoch 89:54-56) And it took place according to what the Lord said. But let us inquire if a temple of God exists. Yes, it exists, where He Himself said that He makes and perfects it. For it is written, ‘And it shall come to pass when the week is ended that a temple of God shall be built gloriously in the name of the Lord.’ ” (Similar to Enoch 93:6-7)
Given that the writing style of Pseudo-Barnabas does not always give exact quotes from the Scripures, but frequently handles them in a very midrashic style, it is probable that the author is giving a condensed paraphrase of the passages in question from the same version of Enoch we have in our possession today.
Athenagoras and the Book of Enoch
Athenagoras of Athens, in his work 2nd century work Legatio, claims to regard Enoch as a true prophet, and this same work relies heavily upon the angelic cosmology presented in the Book of Enoch.
Ezekiel’s prophecy and the truth about false prophets
The topic of “false prophets” is often difficult to discuss on the internet in general and social media in particular because invariably whenever we warn of false prophets, we’re accused of being false prophets. Such is the nature of our struggle to live a faithful life and spread the Gospel. Naysayers and mockers are always there.
This topic in particular is a challenging one because it’s based upon a set of verses that some believe has been misinterpreted in most churches today. The verses in question are found in Matthew 24, verses 4 and 5.
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
The standard interpretation says that there will be people in the end times who claim to be Christ. While this is also true, as we see regularly, an alternate (and in my opinion, much more credible) interpretation is that false teachers will come in the end times in the name of Jesus Christ and will lead their flocks astray.
The argument is all in how the context is understood. Most read it as people saying, “I am Christ,” as in they’re claiming to be Christ. But what I believe he’s saying is people shall come in His name saying that He (Jesus) is Christ, and then shall deceive many. It changes the risk factor for believers because it insinuates there are those who may be leading a church today who pretend to be teaching the Gospel but are actually preaching a self-serving version of it that still claims to be a message from our Lord and Savior but is actually a great deception.
Those who have seen or even been brought into the prosperity “gospel” may have a very clear idea of what I mean.
This video goes into much more detail about prophetic events told of in both the Old and New Testament. I strongly recommend watching it, if only to make you think about what’s happening in the world around us.
2020 hopefuls lurching leftward to appeal to radical progressive base
NY Times invokes Martin Luther King Jr. to attack Israel
Harden scores 48 points, Rockets beat Lakers 138-134 in OT
PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trump’s physical barrier claims as “Mostly False”
Pirro: Democrats putting politics over people
This nation deserves a better class of news outlets
As media, Democrats turn to other topics, we need to keep up the pressure for the wall
As progressive tariffs continue, China scores biggest trade surplus in history
3 reasons to build the wall despite polls showing it isn’t popular
Understanding the real crisis at the border and how to frame it properly
A reminder to GOP lawmakers from Justin Amash
What Allen West has been saying for years is extremely relevant today
Art Laffer on why a trade deficit is a good thing
Thomas Sowell isn’t a fan of tariffs
Rand Paul didn’t like the Democrats raising foreign aid as the border wall goes unfunded
Culture and Religion2 days ago
How ‘Progressives’ are a small but vocal political minority
Democrats2 days ago
The Onion’s take on Kirsten Gillibrand is hilarious (and not completely satirical)
Media2 days ago
Mueller’s office debunks Buzzfeed’s report
Culture and Religion1 day ago
Does Matthew 22:29-30 indicate Jesus was referencing the Book of Enoch?
Conspiracy Theory1 day ago
Ezekiel’s prophecy and the truth about false prophets
Culture and Religion1 day ago
The ‘church fathers’ and the Book of Enoch
Immigration1 day ago
No national emergency declaration: Trump’s “major announcement” will be an offer Democrats can’t refuse
Democrats1 day ago
Cartoon: Is that another huge immigration caravan?