Sodom and Gomorra were neither Judged by God as wicked nor destroyed because of homosexuality

"But firstly, what contextual evidence proves to us that the angels who took human wives, were the same angels being punished in Jude 1:6?" Jude 6 doesn't tell us what the angels did after leaving their habitation, but verse 7 says "even as," or rather "just as," to compare what they did to what the people of Sodom did in "going after strange flesh." Genesis 6 is the ONLY Biblical account of angels going after "strange flesh," hence this is the only Biblical even to which it could refer. "Genesis 6:1-2 …Where in this verse does it lead us to believe that the angels who married women, left heaven to do so?" Common sense tells us that to marry the women the angels had to be on earth, so they no doubt had to come down from heaven. By committing this unnatural act they lost the privilege of heaven. "How do we know that these angels were not already present on earth when they decided they wanted human wives?" They might have been, but I don't base my beliefs on assumption, rather, on what the Bible says. The Bible doesn't say they were already on earth BEFORE they decided to take wives. But it DOES tell us that heaven is the proper habitation of angels, so based on what it DOES say we can reasonably conclude that they were in heaven when they made this decision. Also, Genesis 6:1-2 was discussing a period in Noah's day, and say it was at this point that the angels SAW (noticed) the daughters of men THAT THEY WERE FAIR (beautiful). Now, women had been "fair" for over two thousand years before that time, so if the angels had been on earth for a long time before this, it seems odd that they only NOW began to notice women were beautiful. If, however, these angels were previously busy IN HEAVEN, having no time to observe intently and ponder on how women looked, we can now understand why it too so long for them to first notice women in this peculiar way. Even if these angels were on earth BEFORE deciding to take such wives, their obedience to God would leave the heavens open to them and would not constitute a LEAVING of their habitation as in Jude. It was their DISOBEDIENCE that constituted their permanent ABANDONMENT of heaven, and not only the physical act to coming down to earth alone. So when Jude says they "KEPT NOT their first estate," he was not only talking about their coming to earth, but more importantly, their GIVING UP RIGHTS to live in heaven by their unnatural acts. "Verse 4… The text never deems this as unnatural or sinful in any way, nor is God shown to have chastised the angels for their behavior." Jesus said that angels don't marry (Matthew 22:30), so what the angels did in Genesis 6 was wrong. There is no record in Genesis 9 that God chastised Noah for getting drunk (vs 21), but that doesn't mean drunkenness is not a sin. (Eph 5:18) Biblical marriage is always between a man and a woman, but angels have no gender and hence were not created to marry. Also, a husband's responsibility is to work for and care for his wife and children; to do that, an angel would have to stay on earth to be there to constantly provide, comfort, and protect his family. This would constitute an abandonment of their proper place in heaven. My opponent then claims that Jude 6 is referring to the angels under Satan in Revelation 12:7-9 and says: "This verse explicitly tells us that this group of angels (Satan and his followers) were most definitely punished and cast out of Heaven." But Revelation 12 doesn't say that these angels ever went after STRANGE FLESH, whereas we know the ones in Genesis 6 did marry another species. Also, Pro assumes that Genesis 6 should mention the punishment on the angels to run smoothly with Jude's mention of a punishment, but Genesis 6 mentions no casting out of heaven as in Revelation 12 either. So the same argument he is using so show Jude wasn't referring to Genesis 6 would also show Jude isn't referring to the even in Revelation 12. Sometimes even among the 4 Gospels, the same even is mentioned where one Gospel contains details the others leave out, so this proves nothing much. (Luke 8:27; Matt 8:28) Further, Revelation 12 CANNOT be talking about the same even as in Jude 6 because Jude was making a HISTORICAL statement about what had happened, while Revelation is a prophecy of "things which MUST (that is, WILL) shortly come to pass." (Rev 1:1) Revelation 11 and 13 are prophecies about the future, we have no reason to believe chapter 12 is any different. The only Biblical historical even that fits Jude's description is in Genesis 6. "But are we to automatically assume that because Paul supposedly deemed homosexuality as unnatural, that the sexual relations between two people of the same sex (whom share the same human flesh), constitutes as going after ‘strange flesh'? Based on what biblical evidence can we logically link supposed unnatural sex acts between humans, to that of sexual acts geared towards strange flesh? How do we know that strange flesh doesn't mean animal flesh, thereby implying bestiality?" Strange can mean FORBIDDEN. For example, the Jews were forbidden to have other gods, hence, other gods were called STRANGE gods. (Exo 20:3; Isaiah 43:12) It also means that which is WRONG, or UNBIBLICAL, like when it talks about ‘STRANGE doctrines." (Heb 13:9) So the Men of Sodom were going after flesh that was forbidden, unlawful, according to God, for them to be having. "Strange" is anything that is unusual, or taboo, and surely homosexuality fits that description. Male flesh is a STRANGE thing for another man to go after sexually. Most cultures don't accept the practice and many homosexuals have only come out of the closet in recent times. The Greek word for "strange" in Jude 7 is heteros, from where we get the word "heterosexual." It was human flesh they went after, not animal. What does heteros sarx (strange flesh) mean? Eminent Greek scholar A.T. Robertson disputes even the idea that the meaning of heteros extends to the notion of "different." In his massive and monumental A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Robertson made the following comment on this term: "The sense of "different" grows naturally out of the notion of duality. The two things happen just to be different…. The word itself does not mean "different," but merely "one other," a second of two. It does not necessarily involve "the secondary idea of difference of kind" (Thayer). That is only true where the context demands it" (1934, p. 748). So the notion of a different nature, form, or kind does not inhere in the word itself. Only contextual indicators can show that the "other" being referred to also is different in some additional quality. We do have contextual indicators that the Sodomites wanted to have intercourse with the MEN in Lot's house, but we have NO contextual indicators that they wanted to have sex with animals. Pro is ASSUMING things the texts don't mention (ie, bestiality), I'm using what the Bible itself says. "Genesis 19:4… explicitly stating that ‘all the people from every quarter' of Sodom were gathered around Lot's home. If it were just the men that were present, the verse would have only said that every male from every quarter stood before Lot's home." Pro is ASSUMING there were women in "every quarter." How does he know that Sodom was not just a haven for males only? I now challenge Pro to find one Bible verse that mentions women in Sodom. If all the people were male, it wouldn't have to say all the men. And in any case, it already described them as MEN and BOYS. "in order for the cities to be found wicked (which they were), both the women and girls would have had to be found wicked as well." Pro ASSUMES without proof Sodom was inhabited by women. How does he know it wasn't a home for homosexuals? Only MEN are mentioned in the verses under discussion, and only BOYS, let him show us where it mentions girls or women. Pro, do angels marry women today? To be con't next round.