Was God using a human to reproduce appropriate reproductive conduct?

Was God using a human to reproduce appropriate reproductive conduct?

All other known entities, except for God, use one of their own species to reproduce.
One would think that an almighty God could find his own woman and reproduce purely instead of fathering a half breed hybrid and act as a deadbeat dad and take off without doing his duty as a father.

Archeological evidence show that he had a wife, Asherah, and one must wonder what she thought of God was using inappropriate reproductive methods and coveting another man’s woman, Mary, and breaking his own commandment.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.youtube.com...

Any other time that a human would do as God did, we would brand his child a bastard and have a few choice labels for the father who abandoned him as well. Christians would brand him a sinner yet we praise God for the same sin. Showing that Christians have a double standard of morality and are what some would call hypocrites.

www.youtube.com...

In Jesus’s case, we somehow respect Jesus the chimera half breed even though he was a product of inappropriate reproduction. Some would also call it bestiality if they see God as one species and mankind as another.

We see God coveting, we see him using another man’s wife, and we see God abandoning the child he later will use as a ransom and condemn to death for sins that would include his own.

If God cannot reproduce anything other than a chimera half breed then that shows that he cannot be omnipotent or all powerful as Christians believe him to be.

Was God using humans to reproduce appropriate reproductive conduct?

Regards
DL

Inappropriate to whom? The creation? Who are we to question the methods of God?

You may be asking a sincere question but the language of your post seems to indicate an effort at trolling and baiting Christians into argument. If this is not so why do you attribute the God of the Jews only to Christians? He wasn't our God until Christ came along.

Do you think God is an individual entity with eyes, nose, ears, mouth, and hands? When you think of what God might look like, do you imagine a masculine human shape?

I mean what supreme ruler of the universe wouldn't look like earth humans, right? Since humans are the ideal form of existence of the entire quadrillion starred universe. Makes perfect sense.

reply to post by Greatest I am

I know people are entitled to their beliefs....but this is retarded..it proves nothing more than you having to much time on your hands to imagine up your perspective as ti the real event's of any in said past religions.

reply to post by Greatest I am
chimara half-breed.....lol sure your not talking about Satan...lmao

For this to even be plausible, the existence of a God first has to be proven.

Originally posted by Onewhoknowsjesus
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I know people are entitled to their beliefs....but this is retarded..it proves nothing more than you having to much time on your hands to imagine up your perspective as ti the real event's of any in said past religions.

You must be new to DL's threads -- this is all he does.

DL, God didn't "reproduce", Christian theology is that he incarnated, becoming fully God and fully man, and you need a human for the human side of that. Plus, as the story goes, he asked nicely for permission and Mary said "yes".

Originally posted by micmerci
Inappropriate to whom? The creation? Who are we to question the methods of God?

You may be asking a sincere question but the language of your post seems to indicate an effort at trolling and baiting Christians into argument. If this is not so why do you attribute the God of the Jews only to Christians? He wasn't our God until Christ came along.

Inappropreate to any man who has morals.

"Who are we to question the methods of God?"

You judge that his methods are good and that it is good to be a deadbeat dad.
What is wrong with my judging his methods evil?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Do you think God is an individual entity with eyes, nose, ears, mouth, and hands? When you think of what God might look like, do you imagine a masculine human shape?

I mean what supreme ruler of the universe wouldn't look like earth humans, right? Since humans are the ideal form of existence of the entire quadrillion starred universe. Makes perfect sense.

I do not think any of the above but Christians think he has invisible flying sperm that targets virgins.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Onewhoknowsjesus
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I know people are entitled to their beliefs....but this is retarded..it proves nothing more than you having to much time on your hands to imagine up your perspective as ti the real event's of any in said past religions.

I do not believe any of it but just like to point out to Christians the real implication of believing as they do.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by miniatus
For this to even be plausible, the existence of a God first has to be proven.

True and no one has ever done so.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Onewhoknowsjesus
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I know people are entitled to their beliefs....but this is retarded..it proves nothing more than you having to much time on your hands to imagine up your perspective as ti the real event's of any in said past religions.

You must be new to DL's threads -- this is all he does.

DL, God didn't "reproduce", Christian theology is that he incarnated, becoming fully God and fully man, and you need a human for the human side of that. Plus, as the story goes, he asked nicely for permission and Mary said "yes".

What happened to Jesus, the man’s consciousness. Did he share the one body with the God consciousness?

Who was he talking to when he said, why have you forsaken me?

If you are right he should have said why am I forsaking myself.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Onewhoknowsjesus
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I know people are entitled to their beliefs....but this is retarded..it proves nothing more than you having to much time on your hands to imagine up your perspective as ti the real event's of any in said past religions.

You must be new to DL's threads -- this is all he does.

DL, God didn't "reproduce", Christian theology is that he incarnated, becoming fully God and fully man, and you need a human for the human side of that. Plus, as the story goes, he asked nicely for permission and Mary said "yes".

If you believe the story, God did indeed "reproduce" using Mary's womb as a conduit. We do NOT know if he used one of Mary's eggs and that he inseminated Mary personally, or if he implanted an embryo "created in heaven".

With what we understand today, it is conceivable, within the story line, that God produced a perfect human embryo, directly from Adam's "sperm bank", making Jesus 100% human, and not a half human nephilim. But the Bible tells us that "nephilim" are certainly possible, leaving us to wonder is Jesus was meant to be a "demi God."

I can only recall prophecies that promise that God is "sending" the Messiah. I don't recall any of the Old Testament prophets, that hailed the coming of the Messiah, projecting that the Messiah will be Yahweh incarnate. If there are, I would like to see them.

As far as Mary giving consent, I can only recall the story of the angel informing Mary of her pregnancy and her shock. She argued that she had "never been with a man, how could this be?"

On the other hand, there is a line of thinking that the Essenes took the prophecy of the coming Messiah very seriously, and through their Nazarene sect, which were a sect that married, young women were chosen and raised with piety in a pure and reverent environment, for the purpose of preparing a place, "housing" if you will, for the coming Messiah. If this was Mary's purpose and training, according to that sect, then she did consent, in a way.

Except that the Jewish messiah was to live and lead. Not die.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


As a "gnostic Christian" you should know that the God of the bible was not the true God...

And as far as Jesus is concerned... it doesn't matter how he came about, it's what he said while he was here that was important

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

As a "gnostic Christian" you should know that the God of the bible was not the true God...

And as far as Jesus is concerned... it doesn't matter how he came about, it's what he said while he was here that was important

True. Unfortunately, some of his policies, like his divorce law were anti-love and most of his other policies were unworkable rhetoric.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL