Is God a Homosexual?

Maybe there is a reason that those earlier texts were left out of the Bible, probably because they were full of lies. Yes, Jesus was Jewish, and he was in Jerusalem to observe Passover, what is your point? Jesus didn't come so we didn't have to observe the law, he came because the law cannot save man because no man has ever been able to observe the law. I mostly read the NIV Bible but prefer the King James. The whole point is Jesus is the way to heaven, not wether one particular interpretation of the Bible is the right one.

Interesting............the KJV is the version that most other Bibles are based on, yet you choose to use one that is even FURTHER edited.

Ever hear of the Nicine council? Might wanna read up on it sometime.

And no...........Jesus ISN'T the only way to Heaven. Ever hear of the Jews? They are God's Chosen People because of what their ancestor Abraham did, and the covenant God made with them is to last forever.

And yeah........it IS important to study a correct copy of the Bible. Why? Because if you take and edit a book like the Bible has been edited, you'd end up with a book full of missing and heavily edited chapters, which would mean you'd miss out on most of the story.

Try again.
Yeah, I have heard of the Nicene council, we say the Nicene Creed often in Church. Yes, Jesus is the only way to Heaven. Jesus was a Jew and even he said it, read John 14 vs 6. The NIV is just the KJV made easier to read. I have said it before, non-believers trying to prove their point by using the believers own book is really quit funny. You keep saying "correct book", what in your twisted mind would be the correct book since as of yet you have not said what that is? I tried again, you haven't proved anything other than we disagree.

You do realize that Yeshua actually didn't come here for the Jews, right? They already had a covenant with God that started with Abraham.

Yeshua actually came here for everyone that WASN'T Jewish (i.e. Gentile), which is the rest of the world. Incidentally, when Yeshua said that nobody gets to the Father except via Him, He was actually telling the Gentiles that they need to follow the teachings that He gave them, because at the time, most Gentiles were still worshipping idols and false gods.

Try again.
 
You do realize that Yeshua actually didn't come here for the Jews, right?

He said he did.

21 Jesus left that place and went to the area of Tyre and Sidon.22 A Canaanite woman from that area came to Jesus and cried out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter has a demon, and she is suffering very much."

23 But Jesus did not answer the woman. So his followers came to Jesus and begged him, "Tell the woman to go away. She is following us and shouting."

24 Jesus answered, "God sent me only to the lost sheep, the people of Israel."

Matthew chapter 15.
 
It's a dichotomy ain't it? If you accept the concept of a Supreme Being who created heaven and earth you already acknowledge that the Creator is above petty differences in human sexuality. Go get another tattoo starbukie and don't worry your pretty head about it.
 
Several things here...........

First off, it states quite clearly in the Judaic texts that God has the attributes of both man and woman, which is why it is stated "let us make man in our own image".

And.......fwiw........Adam's first wife wasn't Eve, it was actually Lilith, who was created at the same time as Adam.

Concerning your first point. The text says "Let us make man in our own image" because God was talking to someone else.

That makes no sense unless the "someone else" was also involved in the act of creation, and unless man is created not just in the image of God but in the image of God and "someone else."
So you really don't know what you are talking about do you? The "US" is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
 
This is silly. How could anyone possibly know if God was a homosexual? Most people can't spot one in a shopping mall. Does God spend too much time in the tie section or something?
 
That makes no sense unless the "someone else" was also involved in the act of creation, and unless man is created not just in the image of God but in the image of God and "someone else."

You think God was alone? Or that He didn't have anyone else helping?

You do realize that the word translated to say God is the Hebrew word Elohiem which actually means Gods, right?
 
Several things here...........

First off, it states quite clearly in the Judaic texts that God has the attributes of both man and woman, which is why it is stated "let us make man in our own image".

And.......fwiw........Adam's first wife wasn't Eve, it was actually Lilith, who was created at the same time as Adam.

Concerning your first point. The text says "Let us make man in our own image" because God was talking to someone else.

So.........are you a fan of the ancient astronaut theory which states that aliens from the stars came and kick started civilization?

Oh yeah.........that also explains the "missing link", because if aliens came down and modified early man into modern man via genetic engineering, then the missing link isn't really missing, it's just that is where the aliens got involved and evolved us quicker.

Nope. Not unless you consider God an alien because he created the earth and isnt techinically from it. Though that would make the New Testament difficult when it says God was made flesh and born on earth as a mortal, wouldn't it?
 
It's a dichotomy ain't it? If you accept the concept of a Supreme Being who created heaven and earth you already acknowledge that the Creator is above petty differences in human sexuality. Go get another tattoo starbukie and don't worry your pretty head about it.

Petty differences?

Those differences are pretty vital for the continuation of the human race. I'd hardly call them petty.

For someone who is supposed to be above them, He seems very involved. Giving us laws and counsel on how to express those differences. He created those differences to.
 
Several things here...........

First off, it states quite clearly in the Judaic texts that God has the attributes of both man and woman, which is why it is stated "let us make man in our own image".

And.......fwiw........Adam's first wife wasn't Eve, it was actually Lilith, who was created at the same time as Adam.
Lillith is another lie who is never mentioned in the Bible. Idiot.

neither was Mohammad.....
 
Several things here...........

First off, it states quite clearly in the Judaic texts that God has the attributes of both man and woman, which is why it is stated "let us make man in our own image".

And.......fwiw........Adam's first wife wasn't Eve, it was actually Lilith, who was created at the same time as Adam.
Lillith is another lie who is never mentioned in the Bible. Idiot.

neither was Mohammad.....
Mohamed was a false prophet who led a lot of people into worshiping satan. He is mentioned in the Bible, Jesus said to beware false prophets.
 
Find that the postings have gone off topic: as the argument is very simple in the fist place. What I like to point out, is the argument from different eras of faith, that of “God created man in his own image” as my argument today. What we have is ‘God” with ‘man’ and ‘own image.’ If I said, “I created man in my own image,” then what is my image. When I look into a mirror, I see my own image that stares back at self. Over the years, the image will change as I get older. Still, every time I look into a mirror, I only see my image a never see an image of someone else. My image is one of a kind, with nobody having the same image as myself.

Lets’ get back with God, and his image, as he made his image onto man – and only man as it does not say mankind – and the man was Adam. The image of God is the image of Adam – as he was the only man at the time. It is improper to say man was mankind, as a single man by himself only, is not mankind. Therefore, the image of God was also the image of Adam. This helps in a number of ways, as a religion, we classify Adam as a male and as white. We cannot really say if Adam was white that God was say an African black man. We cannot really say, if Adam was a male that God was say a female.

Recall, before Eve gave to Adam the apple: Adam never understood that he was naked. Only after they ate the apple, they understood they were naked and went into hiding when they could hear the footsteps of God. After Adam and Eve, they were given garments to cover their sexual organs: as all the painting of Eve leaving the Garden of Eden, I just see her covering her breasts with her arm, without any garment to cover them – as the only garment was to cover their sexual organs. Adam, the only garment he walked out of the Garden of Eden, with the paintings of faith show: only a garment to cover his sexual organ.

My point is this: God and Adam had the same identical image – one being God and the other a man named Adam. Adam was tossed out of the Garden of Eden, with paints of faith: he walks out of the garden, with a garment to cover his sexual organ. Then, we all understand the anger of God because they ate the apple and demanded a garment to cover their sexual organs. Yes, the anger of eating the apple. Still, there was anger to cover their sexual organs. Remember, Eve was not part of the creation; she was only an after thought.

Was God upset when his rational with the creation, his man that he created to have the same identical image of himself: walks out of the Garden of Eden with a garment to cover up Adams’ sexual organ. Then why we must ask, God was so upset, he could not see the naked body of Adam with his sexual organ facing God.
 
Mohamed was a false prophet who led a lot of people into worshiping satan.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you post non-thinking garbage like this? But thank you for exemplifying everything that is wrong with traditional Christianity.

Whether Mohammed was a "false" prophet I do not feel competent to say, but Muslims worship God, not Satan. When you call worship of God by rites of which you disapprove worshiping "Satan," you reveal yourself as a truly contemptible bigot of the most ham-brained, narrow-minded variety imaginable.
 

Forum List

Back
Top