Stephen Mac Donald's picture

Stephen Mac Donald

image

Did God pass on genetic information to Jesus

The straight question: was Jesus the son of God in terms of Science? Straight answer: No, in my opinion.

In Biblical times the word virgin had nothing to do with sex. At that time virgin meant not married.

Jesus was not the genetic son of God. However Jesus was right to say that he was the son of God. We are all the children of God, just as any adopted child is the son or daughter of their adopted parents.

Being like a father or mother to someone doesn't mean that you have their genetic information. It simply means that you love them. God's love is infinite so God is like a father to us all.

That's my opinion, also even if Jesus was not the genetic son of God, does that make what he taught any less important? I say no, if anything it makes it more important.

Tell me what you think: Does it MATTER if Jesus was the genetic son of God?

Don't just disagree with my opinion, answer the question don't forget the word MATTER, then disagree or agree. Your opinion is no less/more imortant than mine.

I welcome and celebrate the differences we have.

Peace be unto you.

 

Share this

Comments

LumbyLad's picture

LumbyLad

image

Hi Stephen:

No, it does not matter to me if Jesus was the genetic Son of God or not. In fact, when I used to blindly believe he was, I had a less powerful faith than I do now that I realize that Jesus was likely just one of the "children of God" as we are. Being a man, Jesus can still metaphorically die for our sins. He taught of a forgiving God, and a God of all people. His human sacrifice for what he believed was for us - to make his teaching memorable - that our sins would be forgiven.

 

Could he have risen from the dead as a man? I suppose any thing is possible if God is a magician, but I don't choose to believe in the ressurrection and all that followed this. I say "choose" because it has no meaning for me. I can be a follower of the main themes of Jesus' teachings without the ressurection. If it happened, I am thrilled that it is possible, but I haven't seen a lot of ressurected people around lately except in a Stephen King novel.  The idea that a man could believe so strongly in his "Good News" about God, buy into the people's desire to have him assume the role of Messiah, and actually go to the cross, for me, is amazing. It is a true test of the courage and strength of faith. If Jesus is simply God in the flesh, I am less impressed.

 

I feel more comfortable with events or happenings that I can make some rational sense of. I can make sense of Jesus being a healing practitioner and someone whom people trusted as a healer. I am comfortable with how legends and myths are formed from simple acts of charity. I am comfortable with cultures who choose to write their history in metaphor. I am comfortable with men of phenomenal faith who experience phenominal transformations.

 

The idea that "God is Love" and the two Commandments that replaced the 10 Commandments were enough to make me pretty happy with the contributions of this man. I wish we had more history of his younger years and how he came to the view of a more compassionate God. I suspect he travelled in Ethiopia and India, etc. and was influenced by other religions. Jesus certainly was NOT perfect. He allowed slavery and polygamy around him (which today we feel are WRONG) while railing about other failings in his society. He was pretty Jewish in many of his believes, but decided that God was NOT a God just for the Jews, but for every person on earth. This was a great achievement. He was also a passive resister and an early model for social activism. He was not very smart as a political activist, but seemed to think that as the Messiah, he had to be crucified. I don't think this was at all necessary, but perhaps he would have been forgotten if this had not been part of it all. So this is my answer to your question Stephen. I believe this openly with all of my heart and attend the local United Church with these beliefs.

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

To say that Christ is a Child of Love ... whoa, is that religious? A Hippie, flower child like L'lethe! Now there's a shadow persona!

It seems enlightening, but would religious people teach such a thing as Love (infinite idealism). Isn't love-making bad from the get-go with Adam and Eve in the shadows of the garden? Shem-full process in a Roman conquering idealism. Perhaps Love just got out of hand from the thinking proccess and was not longer a compassionate thing will Zion/Zoaring in the heights. Power does corrupt ... even the Hebrew! You bury them to bring them back to Earth ... or is that a 'eL of a enlightening experience?

Not likely religiously acceptable in a mind difficult to change once taught by a tyranical father (Caligula) that we dare not question! It is more in the line of my Love is better than yours so I am richer ... see! We wins in the end, the tyranical destructive one? And another infnite leasson is taught to a wisdom far beyond that of a mortal. Such is the state of an infnite mind "c"Oz moe logical space. Wired and perhaps a bit Eire then can you dissect the meaning of Eire in old Celtic?

Isn't that an odd enigma ... of the soul/mind/psyche complex?

An open heart and mind must be a friable substance in order to evolve ... thus the remnants ... only soul and spirit to start over with! Can you pass such metaphysical manna on to the next phase (dimension)?

Stephen Mac Donald's picture

Stephen Mac Donald

image

What's wrong with teaching people to have unyielding love? I think that the hippies had that part right, just went about it in the wrong way.

cafe