Problem with this is:
• God is never illustrated as pregnateable, but solely as an all encompassing potent creative force/influence
• He created man in HIS image
• He clearly presents himself as and is described as male across various visions in which he is encountered. (Politically incorrect much, Otto? You are transgressing his PREFERRED pronouns you absolute chud!)
• He gives his seed to Mary - see point 1
• We are given the holy book as the uncontestable truth, and across every possible translation of the oldest texts what can unanimously be agreed upon is that there is no ambiguity of what God personifies and how HE is addressed (the father, he, lord, etc) and to say otherwise is sacrilege
Problem with this is:
• God is never illustrated as pregnateable, but solely as an all encompassing potent creative force/influence
• He created man in HIS image
• He clearly presents himself as and is described as male across various visions in which he is encountered. (Politically incorrect much, Otto? You are transgressing his PREFERRED pronouns you absolute chud!)
• He gives his seed to Mary - see point 1
• We are given the holy book as the uncontestable truth, and across every possible translation of the oldest texts what can unanimously be agreed upon is that there is no ambiguity of what God personifies (the father, he, lord, etc) and to say otherwise is sacrilege
Problem with this is:
• God is never illustrated as pregnateable, but solely as an all encompassing potent creative force/influence
• He created man in HIS image
• He clearly presents himself as and is described as male across various visions in which he is encountered. (Politically incorrect much, Otto? You are transgressing his PREFERRED pronouns you absolute chud!)
• He gives his seed to Mary - see point 1
• We are given the holy book as the uncontestable truth, and across every possible translation of the oldest texts what can unanimously be agreed upon is that there is no ambiguity of what God personifies (the father) and to say otherwise is sacrilege
Problem with this is:
• God is never illustrated as pregnateable, but solely as an all encompassing potent creative force/influence
• He created man in HIS image
• He clearly presents himself as and is described as male across various visions. (Politically incorrect much, Otto? You are transgressing his PREFERRED pronouns you absolute chud!)
• He gives his seed to Mary - see point 1
• We are given the holy book as the uncontestable truth, and across every possible translation of the oldest texts what can unanimously be agreed upon is that there is no ambiguity of what God personifies (the father) and to say otherwise is sacrilege
Problem with this is:
• God is never illustrated as pregnateable, but solely as an all encompassing potent creative force/influence
• He created man in HIS image
• He clearly illustrates himself as and is described as male across various visions. (Politically incorrect much, Otto? You are transgressing his PREFERRED pronouns you absolute chud!)
• He gives his seed to Mary - see point 1
• We are given the holy book as the uncontestable truth, and across every possible translation of the oldest texts what can unanimously be agreed upon is that there is no ambiguity of what God personifies (the father) and to say otherwise is sacrilege
Problem with this is:
• God is never illustrated as pregnateable, but solely as an all encompassing potent creative force/influence
• He created man in HIS image
• He clearly illustrates himself as and is described as male across various visions. (Politically incorrect much, Otto? You are transgressing his PREFERRED pronouns you absolute chud!)
• He gives his seed to Mary - see point 1
• We are given the holy book as the uncontestable truth, and across every possible translation of the oldest texts what can be agreed upon is that there is no ambiguity of what God personifies (the father) and to say otherwise is sacrilege
Problem with this is:
• God is never illustrated as pregnateable, but solely as an all encompassing potent creative force/influence
• He created man in HIS image
• He clearly illustrates himself as and is described as male across various visions. (Politically incorrect much, Otto? You are transgressing his PREFERRED pronouns you absolute chud!)
• He gives his seed to Mary - see point 1
• We are given the holy book as the uncontestable truth, and across every possible translation of the oldest texts there is no ambiguity of what God personifies (the father) and to say otherwise is sacrilege
Problem with this is:
• God is never illustrated as pregnateable, but solely as an all encompassing potent creative force/influence
• He created man in HIS image
• He clearly illustrates himself as and is described as male across various visions. Politically incorrect much, Otto? You are transgressing his PREFERRED pronouns you asshole!
• He gives his seed to Mary - see point 1
• We are given the holy book as the uncontestable truth, and across every possible translation of the oldest texts there is no ambiguity of what God personifies (the father) and to say otherwise is sacrilege
Problem with this is:
• God is never illustrated as pregnateable, but solely as an all encompassing potent creative force/influence
• He created man in HIS image
• He clearly illustrates himself as and is described as male across various visions. Politically incorrect much, Otto? You are transgressing his PREFERRED pronouns you asshole!
• He gives his seed to Mary - see point 1
Problem with this is:
• God is never illustrated as pregnateable, but solely as an all encompassing potent creative force
• He created man in HIS image
• He clearly illustrates himself as and is described as male across various visions. Politically incorrect much, Otto? You are transgressing his PREFERRED pronouns you asshole!
• He gives his seed to Mary - see point 1