Did God rape Mary?

[John Thiel]

This topic statement is not blasphemous, but it seems like it would be outside the scope of a religious discussion.

 

[kai]

Actually,

philosophically speaking, Mary permitted it. Therefore, with consent. Let the Bible tell the story for us

.

Luke 1:26-38 21st Century King James Version

[26] And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
[27] to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
[28] And the angel came in unto her and said, "Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women."
[29] And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying and cast about in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
[30] And the angel said unto her, "Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favor with God.
[31] And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a Son, and shalt call His name JESUS.
[32] He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David,
[33] and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His Kingdom there shall be no end."
[34] Then said Mary unto the angel, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"
[35] And the angel answered and said unto her, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that Holy Being who shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
[36] And behold, thy cousin Elizabeth: she hath also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
[37] For with God nothing shall be impossible."
[38] And Mary said, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." And the angel departed from her.

Saying that Mary didn't permitted it is Biblical ignorance, mister.

philosophically speaking, did Mary permit it ,if she was the chosen "vessel" at her own birth?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I dislike bringing back dead topics, but a thought occurred to me about this issue the other night and I was wondering if someone could answer it for me.

Here are the premises and conclusions of my line of inquiry (feel free to critique if you think them lacking):

p1. The Abrahamic God is beyond human understanding.

p2. Mary is a human.

p3. In order to give informed consent to an activity and its readily foreseeable potential implications each party must have a 'sufficient level of understanding' (depending on the activity and it's implications) about factors relevant to the activity.

p4. Partners within the activity are relevant factors.

p5. Significant implications require significant understanding.

p6. Human Pregnancy is a significant implication (particularly for the female).

p7. Those taking part in activities need to give their informed consent to that activity and its readily foreseeable potential implications in order for it to not be categorised as exploitation.

p8. The Abrahamic God is held to have engaged Mary in an activity with the readily foreseeable implication of impregnation.

c1. Obtained by p1+p2; we can conclude that because she is Human, the Abrahamic God is beyond Mary's understanding.

c2. Obtained by p3+p4; In order to give informed consent to an activity and its readily foreseeable potential implications each party must have a 'sufficient level of understanding' (depending on the activity and it's implications) about their partner(s)

c3. Obtained by p5+p6; Because pregnancy is a significant implication, it requires significant understanding

c4. Obtained by c2+c3; In order to give informed consent to an activity with the implication of pregnancy each party must have a significant level of understanding about their partner(s)

c5. Obtained by c1+C4; because the Abrahamic God is beyond Mary's understanding yet she was required to have a significant level of understanding' about the Abrahamic God in order to give her informed consent about the activity and its readily foreseeable potential implications; Mary is unable to give informed consent to an activity with the readily foreseeable implication of impregnation by the Abrahamic God.

c6. Obtained by p7+c5; because Mary is unable to give informed consent to impregnation by the Abrahamic God, any such activity with impregnation as a readily foreseeable implication is exploitation.​

I will not attempt to categorise this exploitation, however - I believe the conclusion is apt; can anyone spot a flaw in those premises or the reasoning resulting in those conclusions?

 

[silenceinmotion]

I understand that some experts consider Mary to be as young as 12 years old. However when God or the holy spirit inseminated Mary without her consent, was this rape?

It's about 16, but times then were a lot different then now. Back then, you didn't have an economy, social services, and a modern 'cost of living'. You had a 'get married, have a bunch of kids, live on a farm and live from the sweat of your brow' type living.

And no, it was not rape. Getting impregnated by GOD for the most important event of HUMAN HISTORY, a blessing beyond reckoning, is not rape.

 

[Alceste]

Never happened. Wasn't rape.

 

[Me Myself]

Without penetration, it is not rape.

 

[Me Myself]

It´s still funny that God impregnated his own mommy though

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It COULD still be called exploitation without penetration though.

 

[John Thiel]

He was entering into humanity, that's all, and had to use the human way of doing so unless he was going to change how humanity was in order to enter into it. Of course, that ends with saying that god "had" to do something, which is as far from the truth as a truth seeker can get, but "had to" is a human concept which is as representative of our imperfect ability to reason about the divine as you could wish. It is indicative of the human problem to say "had to", not of God, who does not share in the problem and so does not have to do anything, passing lightly through any "has to"s there may be. God can do anything, but here he was being indicative of humanity in order to pass his spirit into humanity to the extent that he wanted it to be there. And there you have it.