If God/Jesus does not know sex and reproduction, he is not fit to dictate it’s laws.

Does He indeed not know?
If we assume God exists then yes he would know - because if he didn't know then he wouldn't be God.
Thus God, if he exists, does know sex and reproduction - by definition of being omniscient - and thus would be fit to dictate its laws (if the accusation of "not knowing" was the only reason for God not to be fit).

i.e. with regard God the question is meaningless - simply because God, by definition, does know.

This is simply a logical conclusion following the assumption of God existing and being omniscient.
 
Thanks S P.

Things that we take in and accept at an intellectual level as passable certainly look a bit different and more realistic when using street language.

Regards
DL
 
Sometimes the much more "vulgar" form of explaining this is more direct..however the underlying message behind that video is clear...chirstians may be stuck up and in the closet about sex and yet in their own scripture it's the opposite..can you say subjective hypocrites or objective hypocrites?;)
 
God invented intercourse/reproduction.

Yet he cannot reproduce true and does not have what is required for intercourse and has never done it according to dogma.

He is shown as coveting another man's woman and impregnating her. An act of bestiality.

He is also shown to be a deadbeat dad.
A real good example for men.

You go with his immoral examples. I will not.

BTW. Did he also invent Gay sex? He must have right?

Regards
DL
 
Someone doesn't know what bestiality is.

Basically one species using another inappropriately.

God is one species and man another and that is why Jesus is a chimera.

How do you define it?
I would not have to ask a good debater because they correct while chastising.
Get better. I am weary of your pathetic style child.

Regards
DL
 
Basically one species using another inappropriately.

God is one species and man another and that is why Jesus is a chimera.

How do you define it?
I would not have to ask a good debater because they correct while chastising.
Get better. I am weary of your pathetic style child.

"...Let us make man in our image..." -Genesis 1:26

How do you support calling a god a different species, especially when a god doesn't have physical traits so classifiable?

Sorry, I thought you knew how to use a dictionary. From now on shall I go to great pains to treat you as if you are a five year old?
 
"...Let us make man in our image..." -Genesis 1:26

How do you support calling a god a different species, especially when a god doesn't have physical traits so classifiable?

Sorry, I thought you knew how to use a dictionary. From now on shall I go to great pains to treat you as if you are a five year old?

If God is of our species, then he is visible. Right?

Come and reason child.

Regards
DL
 
If God is of our species, then he is visible. Right?

You can't seem to use a dictionary or reason too well either. If a god is not physical then it cannot be classified by species, nor genus, phylum, etc.. That which is defined by species can have no bearing on that which cannot be so classified.

Or for the five year old here, only different species can have inter-species special hugs.
 
@Syne --

If god is not physical then he can't interact with our material universe.

And I've said, many times, that there's no reason to think that a god intervenes in our causal universe other than, perhaps, through the actions of men, which are subject to the rules of causation.
 
@Syne --

If he's not a physical being then he can't even interact with humans to cause their actions. Humans are physical beings with brains made of matter, no physical traits means literally zero interaction with our universe on any level.
 
@Syne --

If he's not a physical being then he can't even interact with humans to cause their actions. Humans are physical beings with brains made of matter, no physical traits means literally zero interaction with our universe on any level.

Who said anything about a god "causing" human actions?
 
Back
Top