Did God rape Mary?

[Skwim]

And I'd be willing to bet that none of them include "Divine intervention."

Just as I would bet that none of them include " 6-foot tall Hispanic male," or "Lutheran pre-ministry student."

 

[sojourner]

Just as I would bet that none of them include " 6-foot tall Hispanic male," or "Lutheran pre-ministry student."

sure they would, because both those two could participate in sexual contact. God cannot.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

sure they would, because both those two could participate in sexual contact. God cannot.

You're putting limits on God now?

Edit: seeing how it's a point of faith for most Christians that God incarnated himself into human form at least once, I would say that taking the Gospel story as given, God most certainly could.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

How dare you use a rational approach to an emotional subject!

 

[Road Warrior]

There are three options:
-The First that it was some sort of sex crime
-The Second that mary was a willing participant despite her engagement to someone else
-The Third being that a literal interpretation is incorrect

A very interesting perspective. Sex crime? As defined by whom? Some people consider homosexuality to be a sex crime. Others do not. Secondly, if a crime has, indeed, been committed, then it needs both a victim and a witness to testify about the crime. Who is your victim and your witness?

I know you are fervent about making a case of this and that is fine with me. Do not count me among those who take the Bible literally in every respect. IMHO, the Bible is full of wisdom, but it was also written by the hand of man hundreds of years ago and has been revised several times. In my view, the Bible shouldn't be cherry-picked, but taken as a whole and viewed through the prism of the mind we were gifted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A very interesting perspective. Sex crime? As defined by whom? Some people consider homosexuality to be a sex crime. Others do not. Secondly, if a crime has, indeed, been committed, then it needs both a victim and a witness to testify about the crime. Who is your victim and your witness?

Crimes don't need witnesses, and the potential victim here is Mary.

However, I'm not sure how useful the "sex crime" angle is here. I think the question of whether the incident was rape doesn't depend on whether the incident was illegal.

I know you are fervent about making a case of this and that is fine with me. Do not count me among those who take the Bible literally in every respect. IMHO, the Bible is full of wisdom, but it was also written by the hand of man hundreds of years ago and has been revised several times. In my view, the Bible shouldn't be cherry-picked, but taken as a whole and viewed through the prism of the mind we were gifted.

I don't think it's "cherry picking" to examine a core tenet of faith for many Christian denominations.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

There was no sexual intercourse, and no violation of mary's will.

Geez...

Heneni

I'll give you the first, but not the second. The fact that she said 'let your will be done' means it was at the very least not what mary wanted. She didn't protest it, and that's why we venerate her so much and why she is assumed into heaven.

And yes, she very well was around twelve or thirteen years old. Back in that time, it was the standard that as soon as a woman could bear children, she was to be married and start making them.

 

[Sleeppy]

Sheesh.. This has to be one of the dumbest questions I've ever seen.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

A very interesting perspective. Sex crime? As defined by whom? Some people consider homosexuality to be a sex crime. Others do not. Secondly, if a crime has, indeed, been committed, then it needs both a victim and a witness to testify about the crime. Who is your victim and your witness?

I used the term sex crime because some people seemed overly sensitive about the term rape - which it really was if there was no informed consent. B.S about incorporeal beings non withstanding - special pleading gets you no where because that is obviously a fallacy.

I know you are fervent about making a case of this and that is fine with me. Do not count me among those who take the Bible literally in every respect. IMHO, the Bible is full of wisdom, but it was also written by the hand of man hundreds of years ago and has been revised several times. In my view, the Bible shouldn't be cherry-picked, but taken as a whole and viewed through the prism of the mind we were gifted.

Actually I am not fervent about it because I really do not believe that the abrahamic God exists, therefore I do not believe that particular God is a rapist. I am also more than willing to concede that it may be intended to be metaphorical account from God - I already said as much - however a literal account has certain implications... it limits the choices to two, consensual (despite engagement) or non-consensual (rape / sex crime / sexual abuse / exploitation or WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT IF IT MAKES YOU HAPPY - the implications are the same).

 

[sojourner]

You're putting limits on God now?

Edit: seeing how it's a point of faith for most Christians that God incarnated himself into human form at least once, I would say that taking the Gospel story as given, God most certainly could.

How? The sex act takes place between corporeal beings. God is incorporeal -- until he becomes Incarnate in Jesus. Somehow, I don't think Jesus could have had sex with his mother before he was conceived.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How? The sex act takes place between corporeal beings. God is incorporeal -- until he becomes Incarnate in Jesus. Somehow, I don't think Jesus could have had sex with his mother before he was conceived.

I'm not saying that Jesus had sex with his own mother; I'm saying that going by the Bible, God is described as having put himself in human form on at least one occasion. You say he can't do it, but he did it at least once, so maybe he can do it again.

And I would say that a being capable of directly causing physical effects is sufficiently "corporeal" to have the physical capacity for rape.

And if you're talking about a god who's incapable of causing physical effects, then we might as well stop talking, because such a god could not have made Mary pregnant, rape or not.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not saying that Jesus had sex with his own mother; I'm saying that going by the Bible, God is described as having put himself in human form on at least one occasion. You say he can't do it, but he did it at least once, so maybe he can do it again.

Incorrect. Going by the Bible, God is described as having taken on human flesh one time.

Since this is basically a theological argument, you'd have to come up with a good theological reason for God to have done that. There is no theology that I'm aware of wherein God would need to have done that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Incorrect. Going by the Bible, God is described as having taken on human flesh one time.

And the Bible is supposed to be an exhaustive catalogue of all the deeds of God? Since it never says it is, but arguably say that it in fact isn't, I'm not sure the "the Bible doesn't say it, so it never happened" argument is reasonable.

And in any case, we're not talking about something not mentioned in the Bible: the Gospels do say that God impregnated Mary; what we're talking about here is the method, which the Bible is vague on.

Since this is basically a theological argument, you'd have to come up with a good theological reason for God to have done that. There is no theology that I'm aware of wherein God would need to have done that.

So you're changing your stance from "God couldn't have done that" to "God wouldn't have wanted to do that?"

I think your challenge here is irrelevant, since quite a few of God's actions in the Bible don't have "good theological reasons" as far as I can tell, including some of the biggies, such as killing the firstborn of Egypt to change Pharoah's mind while also "hardening his heart" so he wouldn't change his mind... or the idea of God sacrificing himself to himself to save the world from himself. Once you show me that these things have "good theological reasons", maybe we can re-examine the question, but until then, it seems to me that you're asking for a double standard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it's worrth pointing out, too, that the question of whether actual rape occurred is really just a matter of the fine details. Impregnating a woman without her knowledge or consent is a pretty heinous act all by itself.

 

[sojourner]

And the Bible is supposed to be an exhaustive catalogue of all the deeds of God?

It's the only one that presents a comprehensive theological treatment of God's interactions with humanity, according to the Judeo-Xtian belief systems.

Since it never says it is, but arguably say that it in fact isn't, I'm not sure the "the Bible doesn't say it, so it never happened" argument is reasonable.

It doesn't say that pink unicorns don't exist, either. Are you now going to believe that they do, based upon that criterion?

And in any case, we're not talking about something not mentioned in the Bible: the Gospels do say that God impregnated Mary;

No, they don't. Only two gospels even mention Mary's pregnancy. And neither one is specific as to how it happened. Luke simply says, "You will conceive and give birth to a son." Matthew says, "It was discovered that she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit." You'd have to exegete Matthew's passage in order to determine just how Divine the Holy Spirit is, and what, precisely, the author intends to convey by the statement "...pregnant by the Holy Spirit," before coming to the conclusion you've drawn here. In any case, one Gospel even alludes to God in that process, so it's Matthew -- not "the Gospels."

what we're talking about here is the method, which the Bible is vague on.

Which is what I mentioned above. What does the author intend to say by the statement "...pregnant by the H.S.?" At this point, it's all inconclusive, at least where making a definitive statement such as "God raped Mary" is concerned.

So you're changing your stance from "God couldn't have done that" to "God wouldn't have wanted to do that?"

No. I'm saying that, by definition, God could not have raped Mary. But the post to which I responded above represented a departure from that line of questioning and posited whether God had been Incarnate more than once. To that, I answer that it's fundamentally a question of theology, and that one would have to show that such a theology was feasible and made sense. I don't think it is, or does.

I think your challenge here is irrelevant, since quite a few of God's actions in the Bible don't have "good theological reasons" as far as I can tell, including some of the biggies, such as killing the firstborn of Egypt to change Pharoah's mind while also "hardening his heart" so he wouldn't change his mind... or the idea of God sacrificing himself to himself to save the world from himself.

Well, given your inclusion of both the hardening of Pharaoh's heart and the Incarnation here as examples of "poor theology," I'd have to say that the operative term in your entire statement is: "as far as I can tell." It's obvious that you're no expert on theology, so of course sound theological constructions don't "seem good" to you.

Once you show me that these things have "good theological reasons", maybe we can re-examine the question, but until then, it seems to me that you're asking for a double standard.

My knee-jerk response is: "If they're in the Bible, they probably make good theological sense." Inclusion in the Bible is a pretty good indicator. (BTW, just because you don't hold the Bible up as a theological standard doesn't mean that it isn't such). Plus, I'm not convinced that your second example is "in the Bible." I posit that one has to go through some gymnastics in order to eisegete that from the texts.

 

[sojourner]

I think it's worrth pointing out, too, that the question of whether actual rape occurred is really just a matter of the fine details. Impregnating a woman without her knowledge or consent is a pretty heinous act all by itself.

1) The angel's prophecy in Luke doesn't constitute "impregnating a woman without her knowledge."
2) Luke says that Mary did agree in 1:38.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1) The angel's prophecy in Luke doesn't constitute "impregnating a woman without her knowledge."

If the angel telling Mary that she would give birth to the Son of God happened before conception, then her reply ("how can this be, since I am a virgin?") makes no sense.

2) Luke says that Mary did agree in 1:38.

After-the-fact consent is irrelevant when deciding whether she consented to the act when it happened.

 

[sojourner]

If the angel telling Mary that she would give birth to the Son of God happened before conception, then her reply ("how can this be, since I am a virgin?") makes no sense.


After-the-fact consent is irrelevant when deciding whether she consented to the act when it happened.

Ok. Are we going with the Luke or the Matthew account here? I don't want to mush the two. Take your pick, and we'll have a better debate.

 

[survivalapocalypserecipes]

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?

I think , for Mary it was a privilege to give birth to the SON OF GOD...
She was told that she will have a baby - "But when he thought about these things, behold,an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, don’t be afraid to take to yourself Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" Matthew 1:20

She could refuse it ...but she didn`t

 

[Kyle Franklin]

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?

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.