God’s Children

15 Oct
God’s Children

      Recently, I had a thought that may have world-shaking implications, and change the way we look at genetics, and genetic manipulation, forever.
     For no reason in particular, I began to think about Christian dogma, and the concept that God gave his only son to the world, a child conceived within a human womb, with a bit of human and some divine aspects in his DNA that would allow the child to grow up with an innate sense of right and wrong, plus abilities we would attribute only to a divine being, like being able to revive the dead, to change water to wine, and to walk on water.
     The Bible clearly identifies God as male, and says that the child was his son, not just someone he created, like Adam and Eve, so the implication is quite clear, that God, the one in who’s image mankind was created, had some pretty special DNA to contribute, even were that contribution not made in the usual way.
     Interestingly, the abilities of the human/divine hybrid didn’t manifest immediately, but required the attainment of full maturity for the more magical aspects to be observed—though from childhood he was said to be pious and admirable.
     My first thought was that God sacrificing his only child wasn’t the great thing it had been made out to be, because, after all, being God he could cause another, or a million children of equal capabilities to be born. The “only child” thing, therefore, was personal choice, and obviously must serve some purpose other than simply sacrifice. What did hit me as unique was that it was all accomplished through genetics.
     God took one of Mary’s eggs, and either cloned it, while at the same time, changing the genetic coding so as to produce that magical child, or fertilized that egg with chromosomes of divine origin. Either way, in doing so he changed the history of the world. But of more importance: he left mankind a critical clue that is only now apparent, because now, we have not only the technology to clone, we can change DNA. And that means that with care, diligence, and research, it is entirely possible to recreate that miracle. It is within our grasp to have every single woman on the face of the planet give birth to offspring who can truly be called a child of God, and who will innately know right from wrong.
     Think about the result of that fact, alone. No more wars. No more strife. “Turn the other cheek” will be the rule, without it even having to be taught. And the ability to feed the multitude with only a bit of food will conquer hunger. And that doesn’t touch the effect of being able to raise the dead, and survive a shipwreck by simply walking to shore—or calming the storm with an act of will.
     Assuming that the mutation breeds true, the cloning and genetic manipulation will need be only a one-time thing, bringing peace and plenty to the planet in one single generation.
     Any woman would be overjoyed to bear such a child. Right? And what man would not be honored to be raising God’s child?
     Once this amazing opportunity is pointed out to the faithful, I am utterly confident that Christianity, as a whole, will support the necessary research, and help usher in the era of endless perfection.
     Is that cool, or what?


Tags: , , , , , ,

12 responses to “God’s Children

  1. Allex Spires

    October 15, 2019 at 3:07 pm

    What the child is is not who the child is.

    A child with such capabilities would still be raised as human by humans, humans are weird.

    Read Isaiah 45:7

    A narcissist raising such a child could actually bring up not a deity but a demonic being with all the same magical abilities, but with a will only bent toward evil.

    • Jay Greenstein

      October 15, 2019 at 3:59 pm

      Not if he is what he’s supposed to be. The original was raised by humans, remember. If he is who he’s claimed to be, the goodness is inherent.

      • Allex Spires

        October 15, 2019 at 4:23 pm

        IF. Iff.

        Humans are not good enough to define what goodness should be for a god.

        Read commandment 1. Read commandment 2. Read Isaiah 45:7.


        Hey, Jay! It is great to hear from you, whenever I write, I think about you.

        You are expert, but not an authority.

        Experts can screw up.

        We can all screw up.

        Thank you for everything you ever taught me.


      • Jay Greenstein

        October 15, 2019 at 4:47 pm

        Bible also says that Moses saw God’s ass, and, talked to him face-to face, that the world is flat, and that if I rape someone’s virgin daughter, I can buy her as a wife for the bride-price and do it every night. Contradictions and exemptions abound, so I tend to take what it says with a grain of salt.

        But in this case, I’m applying only reason, logic, and genetics. If Jesus was, as stated, a “son” then genetic sharing is mandatory. Was there additional, one-time magic involved? That, I leave to others. I just play with “what if?”

      • Allex Spires

        October 15, 2019 at 6:03 pm

        Now we get into nature versus nurture.

        Sermon on the mount says all are blessed, but Jesus says there is no way to the father except through He.

        So even Jesus is self contradicting.

        He’s a self-centered jackass half-the-time, picking on his mom, getting everybody some wine, claiming the first two commandments are contingent on acceptance of Himself…

        So even Jesus wasn’t perfect.

        William S Burrough has a novelette called “Ghost of Chance” where people come down with the savior disease, ending wars and forgiving their enemies, would be nice, I guess.

        Can the child disregard the nurturing or lack thereof that they receive?

        What is genetically good versus genetically bad?

        Africanized honey bees are a result of an attempt to develp bees that made more honey and were more docile, the opposite happened.

        It was a laboratory accident where a new guy noticed that the screens intended to keep the queens inside were hindering the movement of the drones so the new guy, unaware of what he was looking at, took off the screens.

        You have to assume that all the scientists working on the project have the absolute best intentions and a total definite understanding of what “good” really is.

        And that all parents who raise these children are good parents who are willing to show their children the bad side and make sure they understand why it is bad to ensure they never behave in the ways that are being dissuaded, and to share the goos side and make sure they understand why it is good and worth mimicing and upon which they might improve.

      • Jay Greenstein

        October 15, 2019 at 9:54 pm

        But that’s your story, right? 😉

  2. Allex Spires

    October 16, 2019 at 11:28 am

    I’m pretty sure that’s the Gospel.

    Humans ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

    Cain slew Abel, and only after did he feel guilty, not for losing his brother but for being caught.

    Humans make mistakes all the time.

    Humans are often selfish.

    Designing the Christ based solely on DNA and assuming it will put out a Jesus, is to assume that twins, with nearly identical DNA have the same motives, hopes, and wants, is to assume Cain and Abel should both have been hunters or both farmers, and to assume that Cain never slew Abel, and to assume invalidity of the whole thing.
    In reality there are narcissists all over the place, in all lines of work and in all states of homelessness. They want to be seen as the arbiters of fact and reality.
    Everyone has a different perspective.
    If we are walking down the street and I see something but your view is blocked by a telephone pole, you will not have gained what I did, and even if you did see it, your perceptual filter differs from mine.
    All men are created equal, and the way we live defines how we diverge from absolute sameness.
    You feel differently, you see differently, you understand differently than everyone else because no two people have the same life experiences nor do we have the same perspective and perceptions… except perhaps conjoined twins linked at the head, sharing the same brain.

    • Jay Greenstein

      October 16, 2019 at 2:10 pm

      “Humans ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

      Cool. An artificial learning tree that bears fruit that cause major modifications to your brain, in the form of memories, habit-patterns, and preferences. And apparently does it in an instant. If we can use genetic engineering and knowledge of the characteristics to “reverse engineer” The tree, everyone will know right from wrong, just by eating a piece of fruit. That would be useful within the penal system.

      “Humans are often selfish.”

      But they are not, according to the Bible, someone carrying divine DNA because their father was just another human. And you can’t have it both ways. If Jesus is, as stated, “his only son,” he must carry his father’s DNA because it’s the only way to be called father. So it follows that if God decides to create another son, the difference between a normal human and their being a “son of God” isn’t motherhood, but fatherhood: DNA…unless you want to involve magic, of course. But I don’t deal in, or believe in magic.

      By the way. According to the text, that garden is still there, guarded by a flaming sword. I can’t help but wonder if it shows up on satellite imaging.

      • Allex Spires

        October 16, 2019 at 2:52 pm

        Knowing good AND evil, right AND wrong is not knowing right FROM wrong.

        Not habit patterns, not preferences, just knowing that right and wrong.

        Adam and Eve were embarrassed to face God. The right thing to do is come right out and admit to the wrong, but they hid.

        To reverse-engineer the magical tree for a person who doesn’t believe in magic makes no sense.

        In order to reverse-engineer it, we would have to have it.

        To reverse-engineer is to disassemble the artefact and find out how it works.

        Where is this fruit that it could be reverse-engineered?

        1 John 3:1 KJV
        “Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that WE are called the sonS of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not.”

        We are all God’s children.

        We do not have access to God’s DNA.

        We could not know we had it right, and we could not know if it would work.

        All children are God’s children, and all deserve love and competent social skills, in order to deal with it when their emotional wants overpower their sensible wants.

        Divine indervention is magic, immaculate conception is magic, divine birth is magic.

        Since God has no stable physical form, His DNA (in the original Hebrew, God is referred to by He, She, and They, by the way) should be noncorporeal.

        If you believe God has DNA then you believe God, Himself, is corporeal.

        God’s presence in Heaven is considered the Father, God’presence in humam form is the Son, God’s presence everywhere is the Holy Spirit.

        Since Mary didn’t go to Heaven, since Jesus was her Son, the version of God who is noncorporeally present all around us would is the one who magically impregnated a virgin.

        There would be no DNA, He would just be.

        Divinity IS magic.

      • Jay Greenstein

        October 16, 2019 at 8:55 pm

        “Knowing good AND evil, right AND wrong is not knowing right FROM wrong.”

        Hmm…Then Adam and Eve didn’t know it was wrong to disobey God when they did it. Yet still they were not only punished, all of humanity was punished, forever. That makes as much sense as Eve not shouting, “Yo…Adam? There’s a talking serpent over here. You have to come and see this!” It makes as much sense as Adam saying, “Let me get this straight. An animal talked you into picking the fruit we were told we’d die if we ate, and you want me to take his word for God lying? Sure, let me take a bite. What could go wrong?”

        I missed the part about God creating an unbelievably stupid man—though it was his first try. And it might explain some of the people I know.

        So… A pair of magic trees that implant knowledge in your your brain without intervention by an intelligent being…a snake with four legs that somehow talks with the tongue and rigid lips, and, tiny brain of a snake, carnivores that survive without eating meat, and characters who act to fit the plot, not the situation and their character? And you see no problem? Seriously?

        The defining characteristic of a fairy-tale is that fantastic things happen—like talking four-legged snakes—yet no one in the story reacts to them with surprise. And that ignores the fact that our telescopes can see a star within a galaxy that’s 9 BILLION light years from us, but was supposedly created only about 5,000 years or so ago. You see no problems with the photons from that star not taking nine billion years to get here?

        • Since God has no stable physical form

        Sorry, but that’s just not true. In Genesis it clearly says that man is made in God’s “image and likeness ” Nothing ambiguous, and no wiggle-room there. And please don’t try to change the meaning of what are supposed to be God’s words away by quoting humans who are trying to explain inconvenient wording away by changing clearly stated words to mean something unrelated, so as to make it fit THEIR story. If you believe the Bible is true you have no choice but to accept that God dictated the events to Moses, who recorded them. So they mean what they say, not what you claim they mean. You also have to accept that the Bible clearly says that God showed Moses his back as he walked away (Exodus 33:18-20), and he also talked to him face-to-face (Exodus 33:11 says, “And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.)

        If the Garden story is real than so is everything else, and Moses, who had a personal interview, never said anything about God being super large, or not looking like a human.

        It’s a package deal: If you insist that the events recorded in the garden are true you have no choice but to accept what-they-say, not the sidestep shuffle of someone trying to explain away the inconsistencies with double-talk.

        • There would be no DNA, He would just be.

        Sorry. but making someone have a child magically does not, under the most lose interpretation, imply fatherhood. He supposedly made Adam magically, Eve, too. And no one had claimed that either of them were his son and daughter. You don’t get to change the rules mid-game. If he’s a son by magic, then so is Adam, so Jesus is not God’s “only son.” Call him a favorite creation, or whatever you care to. But Mary’s eggs contained only half the number of chromosomes needed. If he cloned her then it’s not his son. If he used ANY chromosomes but his own then the child did have a father, but it’s not God. And if those necessary chromosomes came from a divine being, my story works.

      • Allex Spires

        October 16, 2019 at 10:22 pm


        I don’t think you understand how thick you made my skin. You are good at that. I spent five years learning how to take criticism from you and learning how to write.

        You tore apart so many hooks and taught me how to make the strongest alloysuous alloys.

        You taught me to start the story when the body hits the floor.

        Situation, conflict, resolution, scene and sequel, logical fallacies, suspension of disbelief, dialog to show, text to describe not tell.

        Don’t pick on me, pick apart my logic.

        Don’t pick on me, pick apart my reason.

        I’m not the sort of person you think I am.

        Keep your assumptions in the subjunctive.

        Adam and Eve did not know they had done wrong until after they ate the fruit.

        A child doesn’t realize they shouldn’t play with the cool looking fragile thing until it breaks.

        When it breaks, they feel guilty.

        Eve was being disobedient, but didn’t understand it was wrong.

        Then when she ate it and realized she became different, she got Adam to be her accomplice, understanding it might be wrong, but not feeling guilty until God called to them and asked how they knew they were naked.

        Now this is interesting because God didn’t know they were naked, or where they were, until He called to them, and they answered in embarrassment.

        This suggests a corporeal, non-eternal God.

        Without the knowledge the tree gave Adam and Eve, they would have been fine and dandy to have eaten it.

        Once the knowledge dawned on them, they began deciding right from wrong, and decided that appearing before God naked was a wrong, even though it had always previously been all right.

        We can assume that all the animals spoke the standard language that is stored in the oldest known word, Om.

        Om is composed fo three morae and a pause, natural sounds that babies make Ah (protohuman for “yes”, hence Mama and Dada), Ooh (protohuman for “no” or “wrong”: Ooh! I’m gonna tell), Mmm (protohuman for “I like this” or “I wonder”), and the silence afterward (protohuman for satisfaction or fear, depending on body language).

        And that communication on those terms is very easy.

        They have no dialog until they admit to hiding.

        A man unaware of right and wrong is stupid. It’s in Genesis 1:2.

        Nobody said exactly how the serpent, not snake, spoke. It could use body language and insistent “ahs.”

        Serpent refers to a creeping thing. There are a number of non-snake creatures called legless lizards. Look up legless lizard on your preferred search engine.

        I see no problem with it as a story, some suspebsion of disbelief doesn’t make a story any less compelling.

        Adam and Eve would have thought the talking serpent was weird, unless that’s just the way things were.

        Twenty years ago it would have been hard to find an armed guard and a metal detector in a school. Now it’s just the way things are and kids who experience that as their first encounter with schooling see nothing weird about it.

        My face is in the form and likeness of my father, but I am a very different thing.

        Remember you twisted “serpent” into “snake”, I can twist, too.

        To see the oldest known depiction of God, see the Shigir Idol. It looks like a manifestation of clouds resembling a human form, if you ask me.

        I can be in that form and likeness; when I breathe in the sky becomess part of my body and I breathe out the gaseous part of my body back into the atmosphere, but it doesn’t mean I am a cloud.

        I’m not religious, I am agnostic in that I believe my idea of God is imaginary to you, your idea of God is imaginary to me, so God is imaginary, but our imaginations are part of reality, so to that extent God is real. I’m right on the cusp of atheism.

        I’m just discussing this idea with an old friend. Chillax, man. No winners allowed.

        No upper-hand to gain.

        I’m not an authority, either.

        Our views hold equal merit.

        The Hebrew year is 5780, Rosh Hashanna just went by, so that’s supposed to be the actual year, so if you’re gonna estimate, round up.

        Just saying.

        I do not believe the Bible, but if you want to write about it, you’d better make it believable.

        If you want your story to be believable, you’d better find a way to reconcile the age with the distance, because your story involves all that nonsense.

        I don’t believe it, you have to make it accessible and believable to me, the reader.

        You have to claim and explain it for it to make sense in your story.

        God’s face moved over the surface of the waters. Where did the waters come from?

        It was immaculate conception and divine birth. That’s your story. Getting Jesus’s DNA. If you don’t believe or can’t beleive it or make it believable to your reader, then your story makes no sense to you.

        That Moses perceived God walking away and perceived his face, it doesn’t mean that is really what he saw.

        Thanks to photographic evidence and DNA testing we can know that eyewitness accounts are often false, flawed, and fabricated.

        Moses was just a guy with a personal perception filter. God didn’t invade Moses and insert his exact meaning into his mind, He let Moses interpret it and write it with his own hand.

        What difference does it make that Moses never described God’s physical attributes? Jews are supposed to believe in God unseen, unknown, and not an idol.

        If Moses gave a real description, people would have built idols based on that description.

        You already said that God took an eggcell from Mary, did whatever with it, and put it back.

        That isn’t fatherhood, then, since it is magic.

        Jews see Adam and Eve as the first children of God.

        Jews do not see Jesus as unique or the last word in being a son of God, because all Jews are the son of God.

        You don’t get to change the rules mid-game.

        This is your story, it requires the Gospel to be factual within the story. Everything in the Old Testament and New Testament is part of your story. You have to make it believable for it to be believable.

        I’d been going under the assumption that Earth is God’s favorite creation.

        God’s DNA can be noncorporeal. Perfectly real but unobtainable, like unobtanium.

        If God can be perfectly real but noncorporeal, how did he impregnate Mary while keeping her a virgin unless he did it in a noncorporial state.

        So those chromosomes would be noncorporeal, giving Jesus a noncorporeal link to the supernatural.

      • Jay Greenstein

        October 18, 2019 at 2:23 am

        “We can assume that all the animals spoke the standard language that is stored in the oldest known word, Om.”

        Naaa. We can assume nothing. I’m sure you know the traditional “meaning” of the word assume. But that aside, rationalizations created to explain away the obvious inconsistencies don’t count. If you get to use your assumptions I get to use mine and they cancel. In any case, animals have no language center in their brains. And the day dogs who have wound their leash around a pole look at it and realize that they must go around the pole in the other direction to fix the problem, perhaps you’ll convince me that they have reasoning powers enough to carry on a conversation of the kind reported. But they don’t, so the claim that all animals must have been able to converse, but somehow lost the ability for no reason we know of is a specious argument. To take that further, and have Eve un-surprised that a serpent can not only talk, but hold a convincing argument on disobeying God is laughable. And of course, there’s not a word in the text of that tale that says, hints, or implies that the animals could hold conversations. That was a rationalization dreamed up way after the text was recorded, to explain away the obvious problems.

        Personally, I like the image of a serpent with two legs at the front, and two at the back, with its midsection dragging on the ground.

        In any case, it’s obvious that the first word spoken was “Ouch!”

        “Eve was being disobedient, but didn’t understand it was wrong.”

        But disobedience is what she was punished for, which says God screwed up and punished innocent people. In any case, by text, God told Adam that if he ate the magic fruit he would surely die—which didn’t happen. And, the story ignores that God—being who he’s claimed to be—could have stated it in a way that made sure Adam would obey, and/or made him with characteristics that would make him choose obey. He could have told Eve to keep away from the magic tree, too. He also knew they wouldn’t realize that it was wrong to disobey, and so would. He could have put a fence around those trees. But didn’t do any of that. So God not only knew the order would be disobeyed, he wanted it to be disobeyed to give him an excuse to screw them and their children, forever. He knew he wasn’t going to kill them when he made the claim. because he used the their disobedience as a trumped-up excuse for expulsion.

        “That Moses perceived God walking away and perceived his face, it doesn’t mean that is really what he saw.”

        That’s not what the text of the Torah says. Try: Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.” and “Moses and God spoke face to face as friends.”

        In short, the plot of that story is poorly planned and the characters and events are contrived—making Adam and Eve more plot devices than real people.

        • What difference does it make that Moses never described God’s physical attributes?

        Because it God looked otherwise from human he’d have noted that. So…given that we know from that that there’s nothing unusual about him, like having no arms or two heads, or being thirty feet tall, we know that before creation began there was a magic man floating in space. He had a breathing system but nothing to breathe. He had a digestive system but ate nothing. He was male, and so had reproductive organs, but no one to mate with. And, since a bipedal form with proportions like ours is set up for one-G gravity field, there was no gravity, or anything to walk on. And strangely, no one seems to have even wondered about that.

        “You already said that God took an eggcell from Mary, did whatever with it, and put it back. That isn’t fatherhood, then, since it is magic.”

        Don’t be silly. We do that all the time. In fact, that’s how my daughter conceived her youngest child. No trace of magic involved.

        “Jews see Adam and Eve as the first children of God.”

        Maybe in your synagogue, bit not in any I’ve attended. And in nearly 82 years I’ve heard not one rabbi make that claim other than in the abstract sense. No divine pregnancy involved.

        So…in the end, I guess you didn’t like the story. 😉


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: