The 12 year-old boy who lives next door enjoys asking me questions
he's pretty sure I won't be able to answer (then he grins broadly). He
threw this lulu at me yesterday. He said he'd heard his parents
discussing "that movie about Jesus" and that his mom said Jesus was
God's son. "Why a son?" he asked. "Why not a little girl, and why
didn't he have more kids"? I told him I didn't know, but that I knew
of a place online where all kinds of wise people knew the answers to
such questions. I said I'd have an answer for him today, but that it
would cost him $5. His smile turned into a frown, and he pleaded
"can't you pay...pleeeeze?" "OK," I replied, "but just this once!"

So, why DIDN'T God send his "only begotten Daughter" to die for our
sins, thereby redeeming us all for eternity? Just think what an
effective and early blow He could have struck for gender equality!
Given the abysmal status of women in those days, though, I suppose a
Baby Johanna wouldn't have made much of an impact. And why NOT more
"kids" (that should probably be capitalized)? Why wouldn't God have
wanted to distribute His divine progeny more widely around the known
world at that time? Since God is omniscient, He must have known that
just one Son wouldn't be able to spread his Word and Good News as
effectively as a whole flock of begotten children would.

Perhaps one of you will be able to provide me an answer that would be
intelligible to my 12 year-old neighbor. If he can't grasp it, chances
are I won't be able to either.

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 14 Mar 2004 08:10 PST

A corollary question, but this one's mine. We are all often referred
to as "the children of God." Does that mean that, while Jesus was
God's begotten Son, we are his step sons and daughters?

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 14 Mar 2004 09:07 PST

Politicalguru: yes, the problem is in the combining of the divine
(God) and the anthropomorphic (Jesus as "son" of God). Perhaps it's
simply not possible to explain that mixture to a 12 year-old in terms
he'd grasp. Of course, the underlying question is whether Jesus was
literally the "begotten" Son of God (my OED defines the Christian
"begotten" as that contained in the Book of Common Prayer: "The Son is
of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten), as opposed
to the allegorical interpretation you mention. Such a dichotomy of the
divine (faith dependent) and earthly (intellect dependent) also
underlies two widely different views of the Eucharist: while Roman
Catholicism subscribes to the doctrine of transubstantiation (the
actual conversion of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood),
most Protestant denominations regard communion as a metaphor. It's a
confusing pistache for an adult, not to mention for that of a young
boy!

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 14 Mar 2004 09:23 PST

If we are to take the term "begotten Son" literally, then the little
boy's questions of "why not more kids" and "why not a daughter" are
quite reasonable, are they not?

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 14 Mar 2004 09:30 PST

The first five generations of "begats" from Matthew 1 include a lot of
people who were most certainly physically "begotten" just as we are
today (see below). Why then wouldn't "begotten," as defined in the
Book of Common Prayer, have the same literal meaning with reference to
the birth of Jesus as the Son of God?

Matthew 1: 1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of
David, the son of Abraham.
Matthew 1: 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob
begat Judas and his brethren;
Matthew 1: 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares
begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
Matthew 1: 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and
Naasson begat Salmon;
Matthew 1: 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of
Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse....

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 14 Mar 2004 09:34 PST

RE one of my clarifications, I meant to type "pastiche," not "pistache"! (Sheeesh.)

Dear nautico-ga;

What a lovely question coming from a very thoughtful 12-year-old. You
failed to mention if the child has a Christian upbringing but
presumably he does or is at least knowledgeable enough the issues to
ask reasonable question for his age. In the same manner than I will
answer your question in a way that a young Christian would understand
? again, assuming that he believes in the message of the Bible  -
rather than trying to justify God?s reasoning by applying it to some
modern day political or social explanation. The answer is really quite
simple and I will emphasize where necessary throughout:

Why only one child?

Let me first address the reasons why I believe that God had only one
?child?. First and foremost, there is no experience known to humankind
that is more horrible than the death of one?s only child. In John
3:16, the Bible tells us:

?For God so loved the world, that he gave his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.?
JOHN 3:16
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn003.html#16

There was definitely a significant purpose in having only one child
because God?s willingness to surrender this single precious offspring
is indicative of his measure of love for mankind.

Now, if one thinks about it for a moment, God DID have other children,
created in much the same way Jesus was created ? their names were Adam
and Eve.

Genesis 1:26 ?And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.?

They were not equals with Jesus however. Adam?s creation was a divine
creation out of nothingness. God raised him from the dust to be the
first of many men. Jesus on the other hand was BORN of man but MADE by
God. In this way Jesus was God?s ONLY TRULY BEGOTTEN SON. Jesus?
kindred relationship with mankind is much closer than Adam?s, and
being a Son of God allowed God to manifest Himself in the physical
person of Jesus, much like any child closely resembles his father.

Adam was created for the purpose of being the biological father of
mankind and Eve the biological mother of mankind. Jesus was created
for the purpose of being the Son of man and at the same time, the Son
of God. At the moment Jesus would be crucified, both God and Man would
lose a beloved son and truly experience the power of such a meaningful
and terrific sacrifice.


Why a man and not a woman?

In biblical times women were not leaders ? neither politically,
socially or spiritually. Throughout the Bible prophecy proclaimed that
man would be given a King, a Prince, a , leader, a teacher, a Savior
and a rabbi. These are all traditionally positions held my men and a
woman could not have fulfilled the prophecy.  The Bile repeatedly
tells us of the messiah?s positions (positions of a man):

Revelation 12:5 says ?And she brought forth a man child, who was to
rule all nations with a rod of iron?. It is clear that the Bible
refers to the necessity of a masculine leader capable of reigning over
a Kingdom.

Colossians 1:18 says that Jesus Christ "is the head of the body, the
church." ? again the position of a man.

Ephesians 1:22-23 says that God "gave Him to be the head over all
things to the church? ? once again, religious leaders were always men
and the heads of household were also men.

So you see, it was not only necessary for the messiah to be a male,
but imperative because of the traditional society and practices of
Biblical times.

These examples are numerous and found throughout the Bible in both the
Old and New Testaments. It might be fun for this curious young man to
begin a project to see just how many such references there really are.

So you see, in explaining the issue to a twelve year old, the answer
is quite simple.

Below you will find that I have carefully defined my search strategy
for you in the event that you need to search for more information. By
following the same type of searches that I did you may be able to
enhance the research I have provided even further. I hope you find
that that my research exceeds your expectations. If you have any
questions about my research please post a clarification request prior
to rating the answer. Otherwise, I welcome your rating and your final
comments and I look forward to working with you again in the near
future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.

Best regards;
Tutuzdad ? Google Answers Researcher


INFORMATION SOURCES

The Holy Bible


SEARCH STRATEGY


SEARCH ENGINES USED:

Google ://www.google.com




SEARCH TERMS USED:

Jesus, Son, bible

---

Request for Answer Clarification by nautico-ga on 14 Mar 2004 10:10 PST

"So you see, it was not only necessary for the messiah to be a male,
but imperative because of the traditional society and practices of
Biblical times." So, it was God and not man who "decided" that His
messiah must be a man in order to conform with norms of that period? I
assume, then, that while God did have the option of begetting a female
messiah, He simply chose not to, correct?

---

Clarification of Answer by tutuzdad-ga on 14 Mar 2004 10:59 PST

The child's question is certainly a resonable one. In fact, it's a
pretty heady thought for a 12 year old.

As for the term "begotten" this is used a variety of ways in the
Bible. Yhe most common of course is a man's biological and natirual
sire of decendants.

In Acts 13:33 we see the scripture refer to God's resurrection of
Jesus in which is written:

"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath
raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

So you see, while Mary actually begat Jesus (gave birth to him) God
begat Jesus by causing him to be born. The Bible actually DOES use
this term to describe God's fatherly relationship to Jesus - again,
emphasis in brakcets here is mine for clarity sake:

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and
every one that loveth Him [God] that begat loveth him also that is
begotten of Him [God]."

Very seldom if ever do we see Hebrew lineage refer to a woman who
begat a child even though she technically does. This type of lineage
record was primarily reserved for men, the heads of households from
whom their name is derived (i.e. "Isaac, son of Abraham"). Women are
usually said to have "bore" or "borne" a child, labored with a child
or "delivered" the child in a sense to her husband.

I hope this provides some clarification.

regards;
tutuzdad-ga

---

Clarification of Answer by tutuzdad-ga on 14 Mar 2004 11:03 PST

"So you see, it was not only necessary for the messiah to be a male,
but imperative because of the traditional society and practices of
Biblical times." So, it was God and not man who "decided" that His
messiah must be a man in order to conform with norms of that period? I
assume, then, that while God did have the option of begetting a female
messiah, He simply chose not to, correct?


The Bible says that "for everything there is a season". At this time
in the history of man and in this region of the world it would have
been neither productive or acceptable for a woman to have appeared in
the role of Messiah. So, in answer to your question, yes, apparently
God decided that in this "season" it was the appropriate thing to do.

regards;
tutuzdad-ga

---

Request for Answer Clarification by nautico-ga on 14 Mar 2004 12:27 PST

Thanks for that clarification. Begat, then, means sired. Makes sense to me!

---

Clarification of Answer by tutuzdad-ga on 14 Mar 2004 12:42 PST

Yes, that is correct, when used in that way.

I look forward to next time.

tutuzdad-ga

---

Clarification of Answer by tutuzdad-ga on 16 Mar 2004 15:03 PST

For me it isn?t a problem at all.

Perhaps all of these beliefs CAN be right to some extent ? and,
perhaps none of them entirely, at least where interpretation is
concerned. Even my own interpretation of my religious belief might be
in error. I certainly hope not though, and I sincerely hope you feel
the same way about yours. I won?t begin to suggest or debate that one
belief is more correct than another, but I will point out what I DO
KNOW, for your consideration.

God wants us to believe without question His plan for us ? that?s called faith:

Ephesians 2:8 8 ?For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not
of yourselves: it is the gift of God?

Faith comes in many forms:

Acts 24:14 14 ?But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which
they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all
things which are written in the law and in the prophets?

God doesn?t want us to denounce anyone else?s belief, even if we don?t
agree with it. This is CRYSTAL CLEAR in the Bible, so I?m not about to
enter into that debate with anyone:

Read Romans Chapter 14 carefully:

?Now accept the one who is weak in faith, not for passing judgment on
his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he
who is weak eats vegetables. The one who eats is not to regard with
contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not
to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he
stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him
stand. One person regards one day above another, another regards every
day. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who
observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so
for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the
Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives
for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for
the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live
or die, we are the Lord's.

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord
both of the dead and of the living. But you, why do you judge your
brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt?
For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is
written, "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND
EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD." So then each one of us will
give an account of himself to God.?

This scripture is not about whether or not it is right or wrong to eat
meat. No?Its about the various denominations and beliefs in this world
and how we are not to judge one another ? our hands are full
perfecting our own observation of religion let alone examining one
that we don?t practice. It?s also about sin, and the fact that if you,
faithful in your own belief, truly believe something is a sin, (not
wearing a yarmulke in the temple - judaism, not washing before prayer
- muslim, etc) then for YOU it ?is? a sin.

Who am I then to say that these practices are right or wrong, founded
or unfounded, wise or foolish, when my belief does not require me to
do either of those things? God clearly says we should not ? so I shall
not.

That?s pretty much it in a nutshell isn?t it? Plain and simple. 

That?s all I have friends. I?d welcome any of you to post your own
question on Google Answers if you like. I?ll be watching for you.

Regards;
Tutuzdad-ga

Many thanks. I will interpret all of this for my 12 year-old friend.

Dear Nautico, 

It's a big question that has to do with belief as it has to do with
other elements (such as societal structure).

"We are all God's sons and daughters" could be one answer, which is
probably the oen you'll get if you'll ask a local priest that
question. God chose His/Her son to deliver us the message.

Another answer, is that the "son" allegory should be taken at that
level, not in the literal level. In other words, God's "son" is an
allegory for His closeness and divine inspiration.

A third answer, regarding other children of God, could come from the
social realm (and may not fit an innocent 12-year-old): the society at
Jesus' times, and moreover when the Bible was written and expanded,
was paternalistic. Such a society just did not let a woman receive the
same opportunities as Jesus: not by learning (Jesus was after all, a
teacher and a scholar); not by having a profession (unless you count
Magdalene's); not by being regarded as someone whose opinion and
theological analysis matters.

The Talmud refers to women as "fickle minded". The story of Bruria is
the one of a Jewish woman of her time who tried to protest against a
male-dominated religion:
"To prove her wrong, Bruria?s husband persuaded a yeshiva student to
seduce his wife. Bruria ultimately succumbed to the student?s
advances. When she discovered what her husband had done, she killed
herself."
(SOURCE: Women of the Bible on Stage, By Susan Josephs
<http://wwwnew.towson.edu/theatremfa/artists/gablev2.html> ). Unlike
Jesus, nobody calls her "The Daughter of God", although she was
sacrificied by a society not ready for a religious change (maybe also
because in Judaism, God is not something so concrete as being able to
have a "son", which they regard as idolising).

Hi Tutuz, Good to see you using scriptures to back your comments. I`m
impressed. But would you mind me pointing out something about your
comment where you say that women are rarely mentioned. Matthew 1; 1 to
16 gives the lineage from Abraham to Jacob, with Jacob being the
husband of Mary, Jesus` mother. Now at Luke 3;23 to 38 is the lineage
of Jesus , reversed, from God to Jesus himself. There at 23, it states
that Jesus was the Son of Joseph, and grandson of He`li. This is
actually the lineage of Mary, and He`li was Mary`s natural father. She
was a direct descendant of David, of the tribe of Judah. The reference
that ...Joseph, son of He`li, was written in this style because of the
paternal system of those days. When Joseph married Mary, he would be
regarded by He`li as his son, in actual fact, son-in-law. Mary was
very important in God`s scheme of things, but was never intended to be
"worshipped" as we see today. Need I say where. Jesus loved his mother
dearly and when he was dying, asked John to look after her. Mary was
not the "Mother of God"
 simply because Jesus is not God. He has his qualities. The scripture
at First Peter 2;21-23. ...leaving you a model for you to follow his
steps closely...Jesus, following his fathers [God`s] direction, showed
us how we should behave.

Hi Tutuz ...again... Made a blue... Jacob was the father of Joseph,
who was the husband of Mary...

How does anyone KNOW for sure that he didn't have more kids?

Record keeping was a bit hit and miss back in those days.

Because it would negate the value of losing [ God`s] ONLY son. From a
logical point of view, a parent with a number of children, who loses
one of them, is understandably grief stricken, but can be comforted by
the remaining children. A parent of only ONE child has NOTHING left.
The loss is just so much more.

IIRC Carl Jung posited in "Answer to Job" that Christ was actually
God's second son.

I'd make your 12 year old neighbor read "Answer to Job" before he
asked any more questions.

Still an intriguing conundrum.

Surely, at the time of conception, God would not have recognised that
Jesus was going to be crucified?

So, Pugwashjw, I can't accept that this was all carefully pre-planned,
as you have implied in your Comment.

In any event, many of Jesus's contemporaries did not accept that he
was actually the Son of God ...

Indeed, I understand that it was St Paul who cobbled it all together,
long after the event.

Of course, I'm not very hot on this subject, but I am sure that
someone can enlighten me.

Thanks.

Not so. "God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things" (1 Joh 3:20). 

The Book of Psalms, written by the hand of King David and inspired by
the Holy Spirit some 1000 YEARS BEFORE the crucifixtion took place and
400 YEARS BEFORE crucifixtion was ever used, vividly predicted it!

Read Psalm Chapter 122

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=PS+22&language=english&version=KJV

Some time before 500 B. C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's
long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after
the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. He further
predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off," killed, and that this
event would take place prior to a second destruction of Jerusalem.
Abundant documentation shows that these prophecies were perfectly
fulfilled in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus Christ. Read Daniel
9:25-26

In the fifth century B. C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the
Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave--thirty pieces of
silver, according to Jewish law--and also that this money would be
used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Read
Zechariah 11:12-13).


Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King
David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words
that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that
the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken,
contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 34:20;
Zechariah 12:10).

If these primitive men's words were inspired by God. They would not
have known these things unless God Himself new it first.


tutuzdad-ga

Hi, Tutuzdad

I've taken up all your references and YES they do check out.

But, when I am out on one of my daily walks, I often meet a lovely old
boy called Charlie.

Charlie is a Jehovah's Witness who has got an answer for everything. 

Unfortunately, Charliue doesn't have the same set of answers as my
friend, Michael, who is a Jew. Or Arun, another friend, who's a Hindu.
Or Abdul, another friend, who's a Muslin.

So, who to believe?

They can't all be right, can they?

Yes, it's a conundrum, and it's not terribly productive to apply
earthly logic in analyzing faith based premises or phenomena that
arise from those premises.

(I've re-posted this down here in the comment section for continuity sake)

For me it isn?t a problem at all.

Perhaps all of these beliefs CAN be right to some extent ? and,
perhaps none of them entirely, at least where interpretation is
concerned. Even my own interpretation of my religious belief might be
in error. I certainly hope not though, and I sincerely hope you feel
the same way about yours. I won?t begin to suggest or debate that one
belief is more correct than another, but I will point out what I DO
KNOW, for your consideration.

God wants us to believe without question His plan for us ? that?s called faith:

Ephesians 2:8 8 ?For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not
of yourselves: it is the gift of God?

Faith comes in many forms:

Acts 24:14 14 ?But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which
they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all
things which are written in the law and in the prophets?

God doesn?t want us to denounce anyone else?s belief, even if we don?t
agree with it. This is CRYSTAL CLEAR in the Bible, so I?m not about to
enter into that debate with anyone:

Read Romans Chapter 14 carefully:

?Now accept the one who is weak in faith, not for passing judgment on
his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he
who is weak eats vegetables. The one who eats is not to regard with
contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not
to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he
stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him
stand. One person regards one day above another, another regards every
day. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who
observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so
for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the
Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives
for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for
the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live
or die, we are the Lord's.

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord
both of the dead and of the living. But you, why do you judge your
brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt?
For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is
written, "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND
EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD." So then each one of us will
give an account of himself to God.?

This scripture is not about whether or not it is right or wrong to eat
meat. No?Its about the various denominations and beliefs in this world
and how we are not to judge one another ? our hands are full
perfecting our own observation of religion let alone examining one
that we don?t practice. It?s also about sin, and the fact that if you,
faithful in your own belief, truly believe something is a sin, (not
wearing a yarmulke in the temple - judaism, not washing before prayer
- muslim, etc) then for YOU it ?is? a sin.

Who am I then to say that these practices are right or wrong, founded
or unfounded, wise or foolish, when my belief does not require me to
do either of those things? God clearly says we should not ? so I shall
not.

That?s pretty much it in a nutshell isn?t it? Plain and simple. 

That?s all I have friends. I?d welcome any of you to post your own
question on Google Answers if you like. I?ll be watching for you.

Regards;
Tutuzdad-ga

Hi Tutuz. Some very good comments. But if a scripture in the Bible
says " do not do that" like carve icons, worship bible characters whom
the bible gives no credence, or add or remove text,[Deuteronomy 4;2]
anyone or any organization, is doing the wrong thing. They will have
to answer for their actions...to God. Second Peter 3;9..but HE is
patient with you, because HE does not desire any to be destroyed, but
desires all to attain to repentance. Bit of a warning here. Change or
be destroyed. Just how really does not matter. but how we obey God
does. That means that no matter how good people are, if they are not
worshipping God, and only God, how God wants, they will be destroyed.
What was the outcome for all the children of those who perished in the
flood? And what of the close relatives of the wives of Noah`s sons.
They could not have been that bad or else Noah would not have let his
sons marry the [ three] daughters.

God's creation is huge - all you see and more. To thinks of mankind
being all of God's family is too limited and never opens for the
truth. 

Every 12 old is a man with a young body - Jesus was similar age and
old enough to go beyond such basic questions and search
for God. Every 12 year old can - sometimes more than old business men.

Why a son on earth and no daughter ? 
Because God's first born loved his wife and wanted to do the dangerous
and difficult work alone. men and women are made
to compliment each other - never to comepete. For that reason Jesus
and his wife ( the one in heaven ) shared work
and responsibility. 

In every family on earth it is usually the first, the oldest, the
strongest son of all children of any father and mother who starts
first
to help his parents if problems occur with the other children.

Jesus as God's first born was the oldest and most loving because most
experienced among all creation of mankind.

The same nature of protecting all girls and women is within each and
every normal man on earth, it is part of divine nature of mankind.

http://www.kriyayoga.com/fairytales/teardrops.html

To think and understand God, his first son and all mankind on earth
only is possible on direct context with all creation, with all
mankind on earth AND beyond. Then you see the importance of being a
strong young man even if body is young - it is but the
heart that counts, and the power of love never depends on physical age
of heart but on spiritual age of innermost being using that
body.

Jesus' love for all mankind is simple to understand because all humans
on earth are his children - children of God because He
does all for his father and hence he also gave all his children to his
father - for the joy and happiness of Godfather.
So God has many while having one only. is that many as we are enough
for now ? I think so if i look at the number and quantity of all
problems the many children made and still make. 

At similar age than the source of this question above jesus was strong
enough to grow far above and beyond the limited love of "adults" on
earth.
Other young man - younger in their body or older - can do the very
same - hence they start to ask questions beyond intellect and need
answers form God.

Ask God and when you are ready to fully absorb all answer in your own
divine love - then God can answer such questions directly ! To all.
But God's answers can only be absorbed in full by a truly loving heart
- else the rivers and lakes may overflow once more.

This one might create quite a controversy and perhaps be offensive to many ...

When jesus said he was the son of God, he didn't mean that God had
given birth to him or whatever. He meant what I would mean if I said,
"I am the son of God. The lord is my father."

The fact is, its us human beings who have made Jesus into another "God".

Now for the REAL controversy ...

Islam is nothing but the correction of christanity.

Ever wondered why you don't see any statues or movies or pictures of
Prophet Muhammad??

He realised that people would make him into another Jesus kind of God
and that is why he FORBID that any such things be made of him after
his death.

I know many people might take offense at this and think that I am
delibrately doing this.

The fact is, I beleive that religion is just a guide on how to live
life. And the men who gave us these guides where great compassionate
LEADERS. They were just human beings. Period.

Just as God doesn't play dice with the world, he has better things to
do than procreate. :)

God doesnot have any kids at all;as the HOLY QURAN says
                               112. Al-Ikhlas :
                                 Absoluteness
           In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
He begetteth not nor was begotten.
And there is none comparable unto Him.

Wow, Muhamed ...

So, who was this guy who claimed that he was the Son of God?

Or did he?

Maybe that was something cooked up by St Paul?