Bill Gates so loved the poor he gave away his ONLY dollar. God so loved the world he gave his ONLY son. If “ONLY” seems stupid in the first sentence why is it not so in the second?

That's the most obvious answer, but if you think about it, wouldn't God, who is described as omnipotent in the Bible, be able to creating as many 'sons' as he wishes? Or simply keep resurrecting his 'sons'?

• Report

by ShadeZero on November 7th, 2008

That is a very good point, Shade.

• Report

by lonelydragon on November 7th, 2008

So life is like money to you?

• Report

by Capt.Lizzie_pirate king_Swann on November 7th, 2008

He did resurrect his son. and if he only wanted the one son then he did create as many sons as he wished.

• Report

by micahhenry on November 7th, 2008

Kinda. You spend it, sometimes on stupid stuff you dont need, and then its gone.

• Report

by DueceGod - doGeceuD on November 7th, 2008

TY for your answer Ethelred That's a good logical analysis that confirms that it would be stupid, or nonsense, to apply it to Bill Gates. What about the second part - why is it not considered stupid in the second sentence?

• Report

by borasalama on November 7th, 2008

Well, im not the person to ask. Religion means nothing to me.

• Report

by DueceGod - doGeceuD on November 7th, 2008

Capt.Lizzie: No, I'm not trying to compare a life to a single dollar at all. It was just food for thought, and I was questioning whether death means anywhere near as much if one could be resurrected at will.

• Report

by ShadeZero on November 7th, 2008

if you're restricted in your capacity to generate dollars then the dollar you have is a great sacrifice to part with for somebody else. The question is is/was God so restricted in generating/ taking/ begetting/ adopting (take your pick) sons?

• Report

by borasalama on November 7th, 2008

I don't believe that one could be resurrected at will. It was a one time deal, until the end of the world, which we seem to be working towards at breakneck speed these days.

• Report

by Capt.Lizzie_pirate king_Swann on November 7th, 2008

I pretty much agree with what borasalama says. But you'd still think that a being as powerful as the god depicted in the Bible would be able to resurrect His sons at will. I'm not trying to offend Christians by trying to make it appear as if Jesus' sacrifice wasn't a sacrifice (heck, if you think about it that's probably one of the biggest sacrifices such a powerful being could make), I just thought it would be a good discussion starter.

• Report

by ShadeZero on November 7th, 2008

TY n points
"We're all chicks"?
.
The HQ calls us children of Adam NOT children of God. For example in HQ 7:35 it says "O ye Children of Adam! whenever there come to you messengers (that I appoint) from amongst you, rehearsing My signs unto you,- then those who (follow them and) become righteous and mend (their ways)- on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve"

• Report

by borasalama on November 12th, 2008

Mine was not ever intended to be a serious answer.
.
Thoughts and prayers for your sense of humor. May you find it someday.

• Report

by Skirtsnhose on November 12th, 2008

So you can be serious, unless your "Thoughts and prayers for your sense of humor. May you find it someday." was also supposed to be humurous. Anyway, TY even if it was and, till we meet again (soon I hope) look after your Skirtsnhose.

• Report

by borasalama on November 12th, 2008

TY
.
+points
.
"If we're all God's children, then why does the bible give Jesus this special designation?" good question.
.
The HQ has a much simpler approach. It does not use the words "Son" or "Father" thus avoiding all these problems. Although it mentions many attributes of God it does not describe God as a fatherly figure and states that God DOES NOT beget. So if He does not beget at all then puzzling questions like the one you posed do not arise.
.
I leave you to PonderAppreciatively with the greeting of Muslims all over the world and Jesus (Luke 24:36)

• Report

by borasalama on November 12th, 2008

TY n points
Paul said "we wait eagerly for our ADOPTION", you say you're already "a child of God through ADOPTION" and you called Jesus a "BEGOTTEN Son". Could you explain the ADOPTION and BEGOTTEN processes in detail
.
The HQ calls us children of Adam NOT children of God. For example in HQ 7:35 it says "O ye Children of Adam! whenever there come to you messengers (that I appoint) from amongst you, rehearsing My signs unto you,- then those who (follow them and) become righteous and mend (their ways)- on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve"

• Report

by borasalama on November 12th, 2008

TY points but -
if you're restricted in your capacity to generate dollars then the dollar you have is a great sacrifice to part with for somebody else. The question is was/is God so restricted in generating/ taking/ begetting/ adopting (take your pick) sons?

• Report

by borasalama on November 7th, 2008

TY and points.
.
Well, it makes one think. Compared to God, Gates has severe limitations, yet if there's nothing restricting Gates to one dollar only then what can have restricted God to one son only.
.

• Report

by borasalama on October 30th, 2009

TY and points.
.
"human life is FAR more valuable than a dollar bill" - that I understand and agree, but after that things get confusing.
'
if "His Son was PART of him" he too must have been God, if so how can you see he's "human life"?
.
Is it really a "fact that He died for us"? In my reading of the NT that "fact" doesn't stand out.
.
It is all the confusion surrounding the beliefs that makes it difficult to " get over it"

• Report

by borasalama on October 30th, 2009

That is correct. All God's other children are adopted, not begotten. The only begotten son shares God's sinless nature, just as any man's son shares his DNA and has a Y chromosome. Adopted children will only share enough of the parent's DNA to be human.

• Report

by Roger Kovaciny on December 16th, 2008

TY Gregoreuo and Roger please explain how did God beget Jesus? The HQ says God does not beget, and most people would not associate this animal function of procreation with God. points for your answer

• Report

by borasalama on December 20th, 2008

TY and points for the answer, but the point is aren't they both special persons? One can generate countless dollars so to say "his only dollar" is meaningless while the other can command into being countless sons so to say "His only son" is equally, perhaps even more, meaningless.

• Report

by borasalama on November 8th, 2008

You're welcome. Again, as a parent, one child is not replaceable by another no matter how many versions one could command into being. So I have to give credit where credit is due and say that the phrase of "he gave his only son" is a powerful one. Doesn't make me believe but I do respect it's power to evoke an emotional response.

• Report

by SloaneRanger on November 8th, 2008

yes, power to evoke emotion it certainly has, to the point of shutting out reason, that itself goes against the appeal to reason both in the Bible and repeatedly in the HQ.
.
"Irreplaceable" has connotations of "limited edition" and I don't think that sort of restriction can be associated with God, of Whom HQ 35:16 says "If He so pleased, He could blot you out and bring in a new creation"
.
To take your example of a human father, if he grooms one son to take over his empire it would be misleading for the father to refer to this child as his ONLY son. No?

• Report

by borasalama on November 9th, 2008

Irreplaceable doesn't mean a "limited edition" to me. For example my love for my dog renders her irreplaceable to me. That is not to say she is a limited edition, there are zillions of dogs. Just none of them are MY beloved dog.
..
We all have, in theory at least, the ability to create a "new" child again this does nothing to replace one lost.
..
I'm afraid you've lost me with the "father grooming his son to take over his empire makes it misleading to refer to this child as his only son".
..
What difference to his status of "only" son does it make if the child is taking over the empire?
..
I think we diverge over the notion that one being can take the place of another with no difference. Of course, we know this isn't true otherwise we could replace any lost loved ones with new models and forget all about the loved ones lost and the pain their leaving gives us.

• Report

by SloaneRanger on November 9th, 2008

I think we're talking cross purposes here.
.
You're talking about each relationship being unique and irreplceable. I am not disputing that here.
.
I am talking about how misleading the word "only" can be when applied to ownership where there is no restriction in ownership or the restriction is self-imposed.
.
Say I have access to thousands of dollars totally surplus to my requirements but I take only one with me. I then give it away when asked to donate as much as I can. It would be misleading for me to say I gave away my ONLY dollar.
.
If my point is still not clear then I think I'll leave it there, rather than make a big issue out of it.

• Report

by borasalama on November 9th, 2008

I understand what you are saying and your example of the dollar makes sense (no pun intended).
..
I think where I can't come to grips with your theory is this:
When a person says they will give their only child, that sacrifice isn't diminished by their ability to conceive and bear or to will into being another son.
..
They may have the ability to father an infinite number of sons but they don't have a lock box full back at home that they are failing to mention.
..
I think we have now gotten as clear as each side can and I will leave it here because I think we simply disagree on this one. No harm, no foul. :)

• Report

by SloaneRanger on November 9th, 2008

I'm glad we're agreed that, when applied to their dollar, there is a world of difference between the "only" of the pauper and the "only" of someone who has minted money or can very easily do so. If they gave that dollar away to help someone, the action of one could reasonably be described as a sacrifice that of the other hardly so.
.
Now, let's come to the issue that I think has stopped you seeing the point I was trying to make earlier. You're dominant thought was probably something like 'but this is a life being taken - does it make a difference whether it comes from a one-child family or a twenty-child family?' From that angle you're quite right, life is sacred and very valuable. Here's what's ordained in HQ 5:32 "if any one slew ONE person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole of mankind"

• Report

by borasalama on November 9th, 2008

TY and points
If the limitation implied by the word "ONLY" is a bit nonsensical when applied to Mr Gates should it not be totally meaningless when applied to God? Or are you implying God had limitations in that area?
.
Surely God can will anything into existence, He just has to say 'let there BE' and it IS. Or as related in HQ 3:47 "She (Mary) said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He (the angel) said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!"
.
I can understand we are all God's creation and He has fully provided for us, but could you explain how exactly
a) we are His ADOPTED, and
b) Jesus His BEGOTTEN?

• Report

by borasalama on November 12th, 2008

you've got your points for the answer, but my your answer is so complex, it is difficul even to know where to start to try to make any sense of it.
.
We might get to the other points in your answer, but for now let me say there was no suggestion in the question of putting a monetary value on the son.
.
Associating the word "only" with the word "dollar" in the case of Bill Gates is silly because he can have dollars by the millions. Similarly isn't it silly to associate the word "only" with the word "son" in the case of God, because surely God can have sons by the millions, can't He?

• Report

by borasalama on November 7th, 2008

Maybe, He can, but He chose not to and one was all that was necessary to accomplish His purpose.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on November 7th, 2008

Your "maybe" is a bit puzzling, either He can or He can't.
.
If you think He can't then please explain why?
.
If He can command millions of Sons into existence then the word "only" is meaningless if used to signify the enormity of the sacrifice.

• Report

by borasalama on November 7th, 2008

TY points but -
.
if you're restricted in your capacity to generate dollars then the dollar you have is a great sacrifice to part with for somebody else. The question is was/is God so restricted in generating/ taking/ begetting/ adopting (take your pick) sons?

• Report

by borasalama on November 7th, 2008

i don't believe he's restricted in it, but if he has already created a sinless son then why would he do it again. The point of him being able to create more sons is moot because the fact is that he only created one. His son's purpose was to spread His gospel and to die for our sins. it is exactly how He planned it

• Report

by micahhenry on November 7th, 2008

Then the use of the word ONLY is meaningless in His case, surely?

• Report

by borasalama on November 7th, 2008

no because it is His ONLY son...He didn't create more, regardless if He can or not He didn't

• Report

by micahhenry on November 7th, 2008

True, but the word is used to signify the magnitude of the sacrifice - that He gave His ONLY son. Do you see the problem?
.
The HQ has a much simpler approach. It bypasses all these problems. Although it has many attributes of God it does not use the term "Father" or "Son" and categorically states that God DOES NOT beget. So if He does not beget at all then the puzzling questions associated with the phrase "His ONLY Son" do not arise.

• Report

by borasalama on November 7th, 2008

Those are thoughts that it conjures up, but there are Christians who'll say you're not supposed to take it literally, but they seem to shy away when you want to know exactly how one should understand the "ONLY son" claim.
TY and points

• Report

by borasalama on November 7th, 2008