He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will magnify himself above them all.

- Daniel 11:37

The study of the Anti-Christ, whether it be from a purely Scriptural, or mostly historical standpoint always makes for interesting reading, or writing for that matter. With that said, it's probably best to admit right away that this will not be the one and only post/thread concerning the anti-Christ in general, and his sɛҳuąƖity in particular. Anyway, when it comes to analyzing the sparse on-line references concerning the sɛҳuąƖ preferences of the Anti-Christ and whether this refers to the past, the present, or even the future, the general consensus appears to be hopelessly divided. A surprising number of devout Christians seem to be quite obstinate in their insistence that the Anti-Christ will most definitely NOT be a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. This seems quite puzzling especially when the facts of history are actually taken into account. Before delving into any of these historical facts about the preChristian world, however, it's probably appropriate to quote at least a few Christians who seem completely opposed to any suggestion concerning the Anti-Christ's alleged sɛҳuąƖ perverted tendencies.
 
ONE WAY GLOBAL 7: 'Daniel 11:37 is not stating or even implying that Antichrist is a gαy (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ).' (Antichrist-Jєω-Gentile-gαy?, One Way Global 7 Christian Ministries)

PYTLIK: 'Some Bible translations say he will "not desire women" but this is a poor interpretation...It is not a reference to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity as some claim.' (Earthly Kings at War, Daniel, Ch. 11, Pytlik.com)

TRUTHNET.ORG: "Desire of Women: Based on these words, some have concluded the Antichrist will be ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, because he will not have a desire for women...what this verse says he will not regard what is “Desired of women” not he will not “Desire Women'"  (Daniel: Key to Bible Prophecy, Truthnet.org)

BILL: 'This scripture has nothing to do with celibate or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.' (What is the meaning of Daniel 11:37 Answers.yahoo,com)

HOOTMON AT RAPTURE READY: The context is about 'gods' and power. It has nothing to do with sɛҳuąƖ preference. (What is "the desire of women"? Is A/C gαy? Rapture Ready)

ACCEPTEDTHEBELOVED: "'The context is not about women (or his lack of regard for them... nor his sɛҳuąƖ orientation), but about 'gods'". (Ibid, Rapture Ready)

LUMBERJACK: No, the Antichrist is not a sodomite. (Lumberjack in Rapture Ready, What is "the desire of women"? (Ibid, Rapture Ready)

Perhaps the most interesting of this collection of comments is the last one, credited to a certain 'Lumberjack' of Rapture Ready who seems quite confident that the Anti-Christ's sɛҳuąƖ practices will most certainly not include the act of anal sex (or oral sex). Well, as most students of the Bible already know, one of the most enduring legends in Scriptures just so happens to be the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and its inevitable fiery destruction by the LORD God Himself. Remember, a key part of this particular story, which also adds to its drama and excitement, occurs when all the male citizens of Sodom (Sodomites) inexplicably gather en masse around the residence of Abraham's cousin, who is busy playing host to two of God's male angels inside. Then, for reasons left completely unexplained, all the men of Sodom demand in unison that Lot hand over the two Angels to them in order to rape them anally (Sodomize).

Now, admittedly there have been numerous interpretations concerning this particular incident, but one thing remains quite clear- the wicked, evil men of Sodom wanted nothing more than to be violently ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ with two Angels, two immortal and supernatural servants of the LORD God of Israel (called God the Father by Christianity). It doesn't take a PhD in theology to figure out that, obviously those who would oppose God and His army of Angels, are NOT heterosɛҳuąƖs at all, but most probably Sodomites instead. Logically speaking, this would include such infamous entities as Satan, the Devil, the Great Red Dragon, along with their Earthly mortal counterparts such as the Beast, False Prophet, and most importantly- the ANTI-CHRIST as well.



Indeed, even a quick check at Biblegateway by simply in the keyword 'Sodom' will show quite clearly that a great many of the major prophets who came after Moses (the author of Genesis) specifically mention the ancient story of Sodom as a perfect example of sin, corruption, disobedience, rebellion, wickedness, and evil (Sodomy).

Now, think carefully about this one for a minute or two. Is not the desires and actions (Sodomy) of the men of Sodom (Sodomites), remotely similar to what the Anti-Christ happens to be about? Or were the spiritual forces opposed to God and His dominion only ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ back then, in the distant past, but have now changed their gameplan and, as Lumberjack would put it: 'the Anti-Christ is NOT a sodomite'. Given everything that has been written down in Scriptures about Sodom, one does not know whether or not to laugh or cry at such a statement. Suffice it say, this author completely disagrees with 'ole Lumberjack and here is why:

A Brief Summary of Three Roman Emperors

TIBERIUS (14-37 AD): 'While he lived on Capri, he had a huge villa built for him, Villa Jovis, the Villa of Jove (Jupiter), in which he indulged his pedophilia. He swam naked with and raped infants, toddlers and young boys...Even in his late seventies, sex with young children was one of his favorite pastimes.'  (Top Ten Worst Roman Emperors, by Jamie Frater, Listverse.com)

NERO (54-68 AD): "Caligula’s nephew was an emperor at 16-years-old and lost his virginity to his mum...His most famous move though, was marrying his two ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ lovers. The first, Sporus, he castrated, and married with all the usual ceremonies, including a dowry and a bridal veil. While Sporus was his wife, the second, Pythagoras, was his husband and on their wedding night Nero was heard to 'imitate the cries and lamentations of a maiden being deflowered.'" (The A to Z of sɛҳuąƖ History Roman Emperors, by Cameron King, Vice.com)
 
ELAGABALUS (218-222 AD): 'Elagabalus took the throne at the ripe old age of 14, and immediately indulged his most sordid, depraved fantasies and desires. He was a man, yes, but wanted dearly to be a woman, and offered gargantuan sums of money to the physician who could turn him into one for real. Until then, he enjoyed cross-dressing, and whored himself out to common men in whorehouses throughout Rome, wearing female disguises and facial makeup....He had hundreds, perhaps thousands, of affairs with men and women while he was married to a Vestal virgin, which was a serious outrage among Romans.' (Top Ten Worst Roman Emperors, by Jamie Frater, Listverse.com)

Now, it at this point some readers may confusedly want to exclaim, 'What does this digusting list have to do the Anti-Christ?' The short answer to this is, quite simply, 'Everything'. Why? Because even an amateur reading of the Book of Revelation clearly reveals the connection which the author St. John tries to make between the Greco-Roman Imperial system of leadership and the Anti-Christ. Since then, numerous scholars have indeed put 2 and 3 together and have concluded that the ultimate answer is not 4 (a heteroseual Anti-Christ) but 5 (a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Anti-Christ). The math is irrefutable here. As one source indicates:

It is believed by most scholars that Nero is the Great Beast whose number is six hundred and sixty six referred to in the last Biblical book The Apocalypse.

- Top Ten Worst Roman Emperors, by Jamie Frater, Listverse.com

In sum, the historical facts about the sɛҳuąƖ practices of numerous Roman Emperors provides a crystal clear vision as to what the Book of Daniel (11:37) is really saying about the future Anti-Christ. Put another way, it really, really does matter when an openly Christian organization such as One Wary Global 7 Christian Ministries, in a self-published article titled 'Antichrist-Jєω-Gentile-gαy?', makes a (false) statement like the following: 'Daniel 11:37 is not stating or even implying that Antichrist is a gαy (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ).' Once again, one can only laugh or cry at such (dare I say it?) Ignorance with a capital 'I'. It matters even more when, over at Questions.com (hosted by Yahoo!), a perfectly innocent questioner asks the following:

QUESTION: Christians: What is the meaning of Daniel 11:37? Does it mean the Anti-Christ will be celibate or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ?
ANSWER BY BILL: This scripture has nothing to do with celibate or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

- Answers.yahoo.com

Yes, it may be still be considered at least half-kosher to answer 'I do not know' to this particular query, but it sure takes some seriously deceitful chutzpah for a man named 'Bill' to contend: 'This scripture has nothing to do with celibate or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.' Such words deserve an answer, an answer like: 'Yes, it does, you stupid fool!'

Is it possible that 'Bill' is not being deceitful with this hideously wrong response? Perhaps...but it remains essential for any 'scholars' who may have somehow convinced 'Bill' he was giving the correct answer, to be tracked down and called out for their malicious ignorance. Because it still matters what people actually believe. It mattered during the days of Caesar Nero, Caligula, and company, and it matters now. As it will someday soon...

God bless and Shalom.

My Douay-Rheims bible translates this verse as:

11:37. And he shall make no account of the God of his fathers:  and he
shall follow the lust of women, and he shall not regard any gods:  for
he shall rise up against all things.

There seems to be a difference in translations here.  Since the official English version of this verse indicates that "he" will be a womanizer, I would say the person to whom this verse refers will not be a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  If this is a reference to the Antichrist, then he will be sɛҳuąƖly loose, but not a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

My Douay-Rheims bible translates this verse as:

11:37. And he shall make no account of the God of his fathers:  and he
shall follow the lust of women, and he shall not regard any gods:  for
he shall rise up against all things.

There seems to be a difference in translations here.  Since the official English version of this verse indicates that "he" will be a womanizer, I would say the person to whom this verse refers will not be a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  If this is a reference to the Antichrist, then he will be sɛҳuąƖly loose, but not a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

Perhaps "the lust of women" refers to lusting after men, just like women would?

This seems like one of those phrases where we may never know the true meaning of it, at least not until the prophecy is fulfilled.

Even Haydock doesn't seem to be quite sure of what interpretation to take:

Ver. 37. God. He laughed at religion, yet sometimes offered splendid presents and victims, which shewed his inconstancy. (Calmet) --- Women. He kept many concubines, (Diod.) and committed the greatest obscenities publicly: mimis et scortis. (St. Jerome) --- Hebrew may have quite a different sense. He had no regard for the sex, (Calmet) killing all indiscriminately. (Grotius)

I think it is quite possible that the Antichrist would be a sodomite, or a hermophrodite or androgynous..or even a clone---  whatever is the most appallingly evil opposite of Our Savior.

"He shall follow the lusts of women" would necessarily be the worst category of perversion, it seems to me.  His mother will have to be the worst sort of whore.  Everything the most hateful opposite of Christ, but these are not wholesome ideas to dwell on for too long.

I think some hold that He will be of Jєωιѕн decent as well. He will be Atheist however.

This is a passage that, if it weren't about a rather unsavory topic, would be absolutely perfect to show how Protestants distort the Bible.

EVERY Protestant bible translates this to say that he will have no regard for women. The Douay-Rheims, I had always thought, had the opposite meaning.

There is a prophecy about how he will have "many women, mostly the daughters of rulers." I don't see how else "He shall follow the lusts of women" could be taken. He will control the world's press so it will not be hard to get away with anything he wants.

Quote

"Hebrew may have quite a different sense. He had no regard for the sex, (Calmet) killing all indiscriminately. (Grotius)"

 
I looked up Grotius and he is a Protestant, unless there is another famous "theologian" named Grotius. Obviously it must be okay for a Catholic to quote the research of a Protestant; since this Bible is approved. But that's not the most inspiring source.

As for Calmet, the Catholic Encyclopedia says about his Biblical commentary: "This shows how much the commentary was esteemed. But while it was received with high praise, even by Protestants, critics were not wanting, among whom may be mentioned the Oratorian Richard Simon. It cannot be denied that in spite of its merits and great erudition it is in some respects open to criticism. Difficult passages are often passed over lightly, and too frequently different explanations of a text are set down without a hint to the reader as to which is the right or preferable one."

So these are not slam-dunk sources here.

I am just asking: If the translation about the "lusts of women" is wrong, and the phrase is really about how this figure of Antichrist had no problem killing women, doesn't that call into question the accuracy of the Vulgate?

Note, too, how Prots have no regard for Patristics on this topic......Antichrist to them is anyone opposed to the hegemony of the USA-so,Russia, EU,Pope,Muslims, take your pick in the decades....