If God made man in his own image, does that mean that God has latent homosexual tendencies?
I don't know does spirit have latent anything?
Maybe more homo phohia, in which may have more homosexual tendencies than a metro sexual person like my self.
Whats a metro sexual haha! I have heard of a trisexual haha
A trisexual with try anything once,
Some gays told me I am a metro sexual, that’s a person who acts gay but has no same sex, sex interest
I do get hit on a lot by gays, I hope, that is a sign, that I am good looking or they
No, better looking! Or they wouldn't approach you!
I am loosing the idea of this thread.Are we discussing god or Castlepaloma.
maybe they are the same person spirit avatar - hey Castlepaloma did you create the world and everything ? if so I have a bone to pick with you about my timing in it !!!
I think everyone is god, I'm not against any kind of sex, as long as it dose not harm or draws too much blood.
I only jump on women's bones.
I think you are mythtaken. Everyone being a god defeats the purpose of godiness.
The whole point of a god is to create a model that society follows- which allows the minimodel of man as god in his house and over his wife and children - and anyone else stupid enough to allow such a person to rule over them. We see this in the posters in this thread - from theose who talk for god (putting themselves in the position of their god) and the sheeple who baaa little childish notes about how they agree and how lovely and fluffy it all is.
The god myth system is a hierarchy that f^^^s everyone in it - male and female, young and old - so go jump any bones you like if you are a god, just don't stand behind me in clubs and things cos it makes me nervous
God is everyone works for my purposes, fighting sucks
I perfer the family like system rather than a breeders/hierarchy system.
I don't even go down the hershey highway with women.
No worries, I got you back side, in a non smelly, painless way.
An interesting thought. I've always wondered why God is so angry at Adam and Eve when they turn out to be flawed... Does he not know the work of his own hands? Who is flawed, creation or the creator, can a perfect creator even create something imperfect? And yes, God authored DADT, and is also ghost writer for Stephen King... well, a Holy Ghost writer anyway.
for you to think adam and eve were flawed is incorrect. They were made in the image which is not an exact copy and there is more to this that i will not go into. A and E had exactly what god wanted them to have and IF they sinned God had a backup plan. And in thinking that a perfect creator cannot create anything that is not perfect you are correct.
God must be pretty ugly if he made man in his own image. Was he looking in the mirror at the time? Perhaps he was on drugs when he made the Elephant man or Rush Limbaugh.
I think the original concept was not physical but spiritual.
Obese mankind is ugly. Im thinkin you must realize this and both your chinny chin chins too. But humans in fit conditions and toned are not ugly. If you want to go into defects in dna this is a product over time and certainly not in the early stages of mankind, for example: compared to the NT how many people were mentioned as being deformed or with incurable diseases?
Depends, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Well, hanging out, how many deformed or incurable people were there in the NT? You should have posted that fact along with your declaration than anyone who isn't toned and fit is ugly.
BTW, how can a perfect God create an "incurable" disease? What are you stoopid?
God is spirit hence he has no image other than the one man attaches to him. We to are spirit therefore we would be seen in the same likeness of God. I find it offensive that you would attach any sexual connotation to the God who created you.
It's called freedom of speech. Get over it.
You just described an image of god. Nice contradiction.
And as far as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", well, that was a policy that DID indeed illustrate and apply the mercy of God. But hey the liberal agenda has taken that away now. Pretty typical, since that's known for biting the hand that feeds them and protects them.
Since Almighty God is the author of everything and the creator of everything, "YES" God is the Author. AND satan destroyed it.
Some say God, All that is, The Source, whatever names people identify with has always been there and will always be there.
Maybe, maybe not
God didn't have to create himself he was already. God is infinite.
The universe didn't have to create itself - it was always there. It is eternal.
Not many people ascribe to the notion that the universe is eternal.
You may be in the minority on that one!
You obviously missed the point. There is zero difference between these two claims:
God didn't have to create himself he was already. God is infinite
The universe didn't have to create itself - it was already. It is eternal.
Substitute the word "Universe" for "God" - and voila!
I cannot agree with you here. The universe was obviously created by some power and I choose to call that power God,My God. Science has established the fact that our universe as we know it was not always as it is today. Something had to form it and I believe that that something was/is God.
(Science has established the fact that our universe as we know it was not always as it is today)
No, science thinks it understands its observations but the explanations have quickly fallen apart and need constant revising.
This is a lie. The fact that we keep questioning things without finding alternative answers proves the existance of God and the fact that He created all.
My suggestion is to expand your reading and understanding of the world. I agree that the concensus is that model of an expanding universe - but it is far from universally accepted.
The geocentric model also used to be the concensus model - and the arguments and attempt to continue to prove it right lasted about 2000 years.
And, that is what you choose to believe despite the availability of any supporting evidence.
And, the fact that you have claimed that power to be "My God" only serves to further diminish it's validity against the claim of universal creation.
You can think and say what you will. Prove the opposite. Prove I am wrong rather than attacking me with your insulting irresponsible comments.
That's simply a silly thing to ask - prove to me that what I believe right is wrong. Proof is subjective - you won't accept any proof that doesn't agree with your preconceived beliefs so why bother to ask for what you will reject anyway?
Why don't you just say, "this is what I believe" (no argument from others) instead of "this is what I claim is true of all mankind" (bigtime argument from others). The latter makes you no different than the Mullahs of Islam who also believe that what they believe is absolute truth and applicable to all.
What difference does it matter what I say or how I say it. You choose to enforce your own stand and mock the stand of all others.
Exactly. They tend to mock what is not understood by them. What a shame.
If it doesn't matter what Dave says or how he says it, then why did he also say this? Quote: "I find it offensive that you would attach any sexual connotation to the God who created you."
I guess Dave can say anything he wants anyway he wants but the rest of the world has to have his editorial approval, because what I said and the way I said it seems to have been quite important to Dave. Is that about it?
You guys are nuts - funny - but nut.
(What difference does it matter what I say or how I say it.)
Everyone is entitled to hold an opinion. If you say, "I believe such and such," you are simply expressing your opinion and no one can argue with your right to believe as you wish.
When you say, "My beliefs are reality and you should believe them, too," then you are saying that I do not have the right to disagree and hold my own beliefs.
Like I said, the latter is the same belief system as the fundamentalist Islamic Mullahs. That's why it matters.
I have already shown using your own words that your claim diminishes your gods validity making it your own personal belief system. There's nothing else to prove, Dave.
I see now that you're just emotionally lashing out with fabrications, my comments were neither attacking, insulting nor irresponsible. It would appear obvious you know my comments were true and it has struck a nerve simply because they shake the foundation of your beliefs.
Beelzedad, I am quite sure that your false comments did not shake the foundation of Dave's belief. What a joke. LOL
when universal creation comes out with a grandious book that spans all time and is of the quality of the bible then maybe it will time to look seriously at what man says to be true, but when the bible states so many super natural things and digs into the hearts of mankind and offers a redemptive plan to give all things to people... the bible will always rule as the supreme book to hang all philosophies and doctrines and truths upon.
Any book you come up with falls miserably short in comparison of the greatness of the book inspired by the maker of all.
You're talking about a 3,000 year old book that started with a burning bush and caught on like Harry Potter! It's all magic and misdirection concerning "good" and "evil". You've been told all your life (from the cradle even) that the bible is truth. Well, I guess you'll believe it until you're dead. Enjoy!
(the bible will always rule as the supreme book to hang all philosophies and doctrines and truths upon.)
Do you know (or care) that belief in the bible as the single realiable source for understanding god is a vastly miniority view with Christians worldwide?
Evil comes from the heart of man. It is not God who's doing the raping on this planet, the killing, the murdering, the lying, cheating, the stealing these attributes can be attributed to mankind.
Evil comes from the heart of man. It is not God who's doing the raping on this planet, the killing, the murdering, the lying, cheating, the stealing these attributes can be attributed to (God's CREATION-)mankind.
He's also a stringer for Rolling Stone covering '80s revival bands.
According to Scripture... Spirit has no gender. Info re/ homosexuality is clear and never contains a hint of don't ask don't tell. (Which is sort of like lying eh? And he shows no real favor for that behavior either.)
Also according to Scripture he was...he is...he will be. In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth, and the Earth was void and without form. And the Spirit of God hovered over the waters, and God SAID... When we speak we use...words. In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. (Triune reference)
What's the first thing a kid does when you tell him, "Whatever you do, don't..."
So yes, God was either stupid...or he had a plan. And Jesus was either the worlds most horrific liar, or the only hope of mankind.
And just like Adam.... the answer to that is our choice.
(God was either stupid...or he had a plan. And Jesus was either the worlds most horrific liar, or the only hope of mankind.
And just like Adam.... the answer to that is our choice)
You offer a false dilemma and false dichotomy. There is no way to know if these are the only choices.
For example, here is an easy third choice. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi whose message was misunderstood by later followers and thus the idea of Christianity is based on myth that was never the message of Jesus.
That depends entirely on which scripture you believe. My own personal holy book, Catch-22, says this:
"It doesn't make sense. It isn't even good grammar. What the hell does it mean to disappear somebody?" Chapter 34, page 378
Sorry AKA, I offer my opinions on the presumption that 12 men went to violent deaths swearing the NT to be truth. Most folks today would never face those consequences in support of a lie that bore them no profit. Jesus was God...or the worlds most horrific liar.
History and evidence at hand does not support his being misunderstood. Theologically it defies his very essence..."Are You the Son of God?" "I am." and with that his fate was sealed. "I am." was the name God gave to Moses when he asked for God's name. No Jew would ever...ever...ever..even utter those words let alone claim them for himself. Mr. Rogers with a beard? Not. He came to pick a fight with the religious hierarchy of "that" day, and did so splendidly.
You claims are not factual.
I've gone into the reasons on many hubs and don't feel like rehashing it with someone who mindlessly offers biblical quotes as evidence without understanding how that book came to be and why it cannot be relied upon to teach a consistent message.
Better you learn the historical-critical approach yourself - but just to give you a hint the 4 gospels each teach a different concept of Jesus, and it is only the last one written, the book of John, in which divinity is claimed of Jesus.
First things first. Are you always so rude? I differ in opinion from you, but would never call you mindless. I would never assume how great or little your level of expertise was on a subject that we had not discussed thoroughly.
Further, the Gospels do indeed refer to Jesus' Divinity...repeatedly. The theology of the first three gospels are indeed less developed in their theology than John or the Epistles, due in part to their purpose is more in a style of reporting, and the latter are more of an explanation.
AKA, Your claims are not factual. But, I'm happy to discuss the matter without referring to you as mindless, or assuming that your degree of study is greater or less than mine. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John again and tell me that Jesus' divinity is only referred to in John. Bless you Sir, but you are in error.
I only get sharp-tongued when someone is attempting to pass off religious belief as fact. Divinity refers to being eternal, the same as god. This concept of Jesus as being with god at creation is only presented in the book of John. In all other cases Jesus is presented as either the son of man or the son of god, but not equivalent to god.
The actual divinity of god wasn't officially determined by orthodox christianity until the council of Nicea in 325 C.E. and it was decided by a vote - meaning majority opinion. If this had been a clear-cut message of scripture this vote would never have occured.
The evolution of the message over time is indeed interesting, but the more reasonable explanation is that men altered the message to fit their individual understanding than that books that were meant to be complete of themselves and were written decades apart in different parts of the world are somehow connected by a common theology.
In the book of Luke, alone, there are three different non-reconcialble accounts that Jesus was begotten as the son of God on a certain day.
If you understand the historical-critical approach to the bible, it is obvious that the message is man-inspired alterations of oral traditions that changed over time.
The difficulty with the bible comes when it is hopefully believed to be inerrant - at that point the mind must attempt to jump through hoops to reconcile all the discrepancies - even to the point of adopting a 5th gospel that is a compilation of the other four but not the teaching of any single gospel.
The reason I don't wish to engage you in conversation is that I was once in your shoes and had just as much belief as you do - and I know that when you are in that state of mind you simply will refuse to accept any contradictory fact that conflicts with the belief, regardless of how strong the evidence against belief might be - so why bother?
So honestly...do you consider the first 3 ch. of Gen. to be without reference to Jesus' Divinity? Is it a stretch to consider, The Earth was void and without form, and the Spirit of God Hovered over the waters. And God "said"... to imply the Word found later in Jn?
Or Isa. or Mt 1:22 Immanuel which means God with us?
Or "Before Abraham or Moses..."I am"?
Or the scapegoat? Or passover lamb? Or one of the most amazing to me...David writes in the 22nd psalm.
AKA? Were you raised in the church? If so, if I said "On a hill far away..." could you recite; "stood an old rugged cross?" Automatically eh? The tune pops into your head and the words are in there...like a tv commercial Two all beef patty's special sauce...
Read Psalm 22 and remember it was penned around 1000bc. Jump ahead to Mt27:32-27:51. For the Religious leaders of the day who were standing there...those men who had all of their lives grown up singing Ps.22...and in vs 46 he cries out ...Eloi,Eloi, lama sabachthani? (MY God, My God, why have you forsaken me? On a hill far away...
AKA... They knew. He just wasn't the Christ they wanted.
Now if he was gonna boot Rome out of Israel and restore then (the religious leaders) to their position of power and Glory?
The "Church" has not changed...regardless of stated theology...still about power and special position...
I would suggest that Jesus has not changed either...and those "sons of Perdition" will see clearly...regardless of which century they operated in.
Agreed...Son of Man overwhelmingly more frequent. The Nicean Council sought to create solidarity and or isolate those with differing theology. Paul made the case clearly enough for me...and yes I've read a good many arguments regarding the inclusion of Paul's work. But without Grace? What's a man to do?
This is fine and well worded as your personal beliefs - and I never have any problems with what someone may personally believe.
But please, don't try to convince me that your beliefs, opinions, interpretations are the same as facts. Fair enough?
I doubt this will mater but....
No, I do not accept that the passages you point our refer to anyone in particular. This is very much like the charlatans on t.v. who contact the dead and use generalities that apply to many to foster the illusion that the seer knows all about dear departed Aunt Molly - it is a magic show that works best on those who already believe rather than skeptics.
Isn't it ridiculous to think that the 3000-year-old oral traditions of ancient hebrews apply to a book written by a Greek in 95 C.E. because supposedly god said something out loud (words) and the later book used the word "word" (which was actually referring to the Greek concept of Logos, not meaning literally "a word" or even speech)?
Is it a stretch? Yes - to the point of being considered silly unless on has bought into the premise. It's actually more an anti-conclusion, as one must accept the entire concept before the proof makes any sense, whereas real proof works the other way, step by step toward a conclusion based on the evidence.
As an example of this type of premise-accepting misunderstanding, when Christian biblical apologists make these type claims, I wonder if they are aware that biblical scholars worldwide have long understood (200+ years) and taught that whoever wrote the book of Matthew obviously was attempting to verify that scripture applied to Jesus, even to the point of alluding to writings that only applied to the time they were written or were dissimilar claims - this is why you see over and over in the book of Matthew words such as "to fulfill scripture" - the author was on a quest to write a book to make it APPEAR that words which were never intended to be prophetic were indeed prophetic and had been written about and should be applied to Jesus.
When you read the book of Matthew with the understanding that the writer was a Greek who had an imperfect understanding of Hebrew and who made translation errors and who took quotes out of context that did not apply in order to offer "evidence" of a connection between Old Testament writings and Jesus, the book of Matthew takes on a whole new perspective.
When you read it in this way, it actually starts to make sense. The same way that if you understand the reasoning, the completely different descriptions of the birth of Jesus told by the book of Matthew and the book of Luke make sense - the reason for the different descriptions is that the authors were trying to emphasize different aspects of their own beliefs.
Thus, the book is terribly human and not inerrant by any stretch of imagination.
Ask yourself, why do you need Grace? Do you hate mankind so much that you must seek approval from an imaginary being? Or pray for forgiveness just for being born? (into sin)? Why? I don't get it.
Do you carry a symbol of religion around with you to get your through the day? Are you afraid of yourself or of your "vengeful" God? Why?
Great questions! Do I need grace? Well, I would have to say for me ...absolutely. There is no way I can live as selflessly as I should. Do I hate mankind? Your kidding right? Being born was no sin. I have consequences from being a child of Adam...but I am not accountable for his sins. I have enough of my own to contend with. The only symbol I ever carry, is the way I relate to other folks whose paths I cross. Do I fear me? Not so much...but I try to be keenly aware of where I allow "things" to master me. Am I afraid of God? I would describe it as being in awe.
How about you? Is there anything in the universe Greater than you? A source of Peace and Hope?
We are the source of peace and hope. We are as Gods. To rely on mist and nothingness is folly. We are the universe.
To expect that some being "created" us, then judged us for "sinning" is a concept I cannot understand. We are judging ourselves and it needs to stop. Whenever we need a helping hand, we need to look on the end of our arms and stop expecting "God" to fix things. He never did and he never will.
At any time that a technology of another is obtained by someone else, that person then studies the new found technology in a way we call reverse engineering.
This is the task that science has been working on ever sense inquiring minds wanted to know.
This gives rise to the opportunity to discover even more than that which was contained within the object of their study.
But it always remains within the realm of reverse engineering of how the universe came into being.
If we ever reach the point of origin, What ever they find CAN be called the Creator.
AKA Winston wrote ...
For example, here is an easy third choice. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi (Edit by me.. or he was the Messiah) whose message was misunderstood by later followers and thus the idea of Christianity is based on myth that was never the message of Jesus.
= = = = =
Realistically ... ? this is a legadimate posability, when ya think about it!
Focus on my edit. !
You keep presenting a false dichotomy - either/or.
1) It is also possible there was no historical Jesus (unlikely but possible).
2) It is possible (very) that this man named Jesus preached a Jewish Messiah who was to return within the lifetime of those who heard the message, but later believers altered the message because it turned out to be incorrect and it is this retold tale that is now called orthodox Christianity and it is actually myth.
So far that is two alternatives.
3) There could be some other interpretation of teachings that was actually correct (like the Ebionites or Marconites) but mankind's intent on winning conversions altered the message. (possible)
4) Four might be that orthdox Protestant Christianity is right. (doubtful - too many hoops to jump through without error over 1500 years.)
That's just a quick, simple example of how presenting a false dilemma about Jesus proves nothing - it is a logical fallacy that is repeated by apologists because it sounds good on its surfact. Below the surface it is meaningless tripe.
This apologist argument that Jesus must have been crazy, a liar, or who he said he was is simply a red herring, as there is no concensus in scripture that Jesus said he was god or divine or the only son of god.
There are lots of myths or byways but thats why the book is around to end the myths and byways. Jesus spoke very plainly about whatsup and more. If one chooses not to believe God even said "then leave them alone". What you want to believe you should believe it through honesty and not just because it is opposite or holds a message that you want to believe because you dont want to believe the other (bible).
If people choose not to believe the bible then whateva but to assume that there is no way to discern whatsup if a falacy that many who want to be in ignorance prefer to align themselves too.
AKA Winston wrote ...
(2) It is possible (very) that this man named Jesus preached a Jewish Messiah who was to return within the lifetime of those who heard the message, but later believers altered the message because it turned out to be incorrect and it is this retold tale that is now called orthodox Christianity and it is actually myth.
= = = = =
(2) It is possible (very) that this man named Jesus was the Messiah and preached that "HE" (a Jewish Messiah) who was to return within the lifetime of those who heard the message,..
... and those whom he came for were taken exactly as Jesus said that he would do.
In a population as large as was the case in all of Israel & Judea at that time; and considering that the Romans were killing an unknown number of rebels, it would have been quite easy for 144,000 people throughout all of Judea and Israel to have been taken unaware by the general populous.
Because they were unaware of the event having taken place (as a their in the night). For this reason, believers have been trying to make sense of it ever sense.
But because the story has been based upon this misconception, we just can not line all the ducks up in a row.
Is this possible?
Mrs. God doesn't think so, but she says he does act quite strangely at times. God is the author of ALL things, Good or Evil.
I think he was quite respectful of the Mrs. Discussing their family...that is the invention of Family Planning. "Let US make man in OUR own image" "Male and Female made he them." Twins! well whaddayya know! They're cute! Babies!
I suppose in an extremely far-fetched sense it could be considered possible, but the point I was making was that your presentation of only two alterntives is logical fallacy called "the false dilemma".
There are more than two alternative possibilities. That's the point.
all possiblities contradict bible doctrine that is why there is only one way and only one possibility.
by ngureco 14 months ago
Why Did God Create Satan?
by Dave36 6 years ago
Hey folks i'm a 41 yr old guy from the UK, iv'e worked all around the world for 20 years on oil refineries....Iv'e met & worked with 1000's of different people, & many different cultures from nearly 40 countries....I'm not practising any form of religion at the moment, but i have always...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 months ago
Did God make us or did we make God?
by pisean282311 10 years ago
what is god according to you..you may belong to any faith or agnostic or atheist...what does it come to your mind when god word is uttered...
by skeeter747 9 years ago
Who is God and Why do you think your God is the right God ?
by Bill Akers 7 years ago
If nothing can only produce nothing, how did our universe start from nothing without God? There are many unanswered questions in the science and astronomy fields. Since these fields can not have God as an answer, they toss out data that disproves their belief about a Creator. Actually a Creator...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|