Go back to previous topic
Forum nameGeneral Discussion Archives
Topic subjectdid God rape Mary?
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=18&topic_id=179829
179829, did God rape Mary?
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 09:47 AM
so...God sent an angel to TELL Mary that she was going to give birth to God's son. Gabriel, the angel, didn't ASK Mary anything. she was told. considering she was a young woman or maybe even a girl...and God was a deity. w/all power in His hands and all that jazz. Alpha/Omega...you know the deal. what if she'd said 'no'? what would've happened to her? we know how God was at that point - He was still very Old Testament. he was into smiting ppl who disobeyed. and there was no salvation via Jesus - yet.

given the power differential did Mary give meaningful consent to this whole thing? isn't this at least as bad as what happens when a young girl has sex w/a teacher? i know God wasn't her teacher exactly - He considers Himself her 'father'. so...this is at least somewhat incestuous. we can ask Soon-Yi and Woody about it...we call that rape too. or molestation. either way we don't celebrate it.

i think maybe she was raped.

Luke 1:26-38

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34 And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" 35 And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God." 38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

179830, No, because God is inherently good and all of His actions are
Posted by Teknontheou, Wed Dec-23-15 09:56 AM
justified, by the definition of who He is.
179831, Stockholm much? The God of the bible is a genocidal maniac
Posted by John Forte, Wed Dec-23-15 10:44 AM
And all-around asshole
179832, The Bible states again and again that God is inherently good.
Posted by Teknontheou, Wed Dec-23-15 10:58 AM
That means his actions are always right, regardless of how they seem or feel to us.

I'm not telling you you have to believe that - most human beings on the planet do not believe it. But that's the logic.

By contrast, the ancient Greeks did not believe that their gods were inherently just. In fact, tons of rapes are committed by gods in Greek mythology and an ancient Greek would have immediately told you "oh yeah, Zeus raped whoever, or Poseidon raped this maiden, etc."

The point I'm making is that within Christian thought, that was not rape.
179833, outside of Xtian thought...is that rape?
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:24 AM
179834, Road to rape is paved with good intention.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 10:48 AM
Lots of rapists are nice guys who 'mean well'.
179835, But this wasn't no ordinary man. (c) Bushwick Bill
Posted by Teknontheou, Wed Dec-23-15 10:59 AM
179836, Right. So she couldn't give meaningful consent.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:03 AM
Thus - rape.
179837, Rape is sinful and the God of thd Bible cannot sin, so no.
Posted by Teknontheou, Wed Dec-23-15 11:10 AM
If God Shammgod, a human being who played basketball in the 90s had done this, he'd be guilty of rape, sure.
179838, the rapist wrote the Bible though. Lol
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:12 AM
How convenient.
179839, Oh, ok.
Posted by Teknontheou, Wed Dec-23-15 11:13 AM
179840, what happens if she says 'no'?
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:24 AM
179841, Within Christian thought, it wouldn't be rape.
Posted by Teknontheou, Wed Dec-23-15 11:39 AM
In the United States of America, in 2015, with a natural person as the accused, it would totally be rape.
179842, i think so too.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:40 AM
179843, Nothing is inheritely good if it does bad things
Posted by justin_scott, Wed Dec-23-15 01:39 PM
.
179844, RE: did God rape Mary?
Posted by Mgmt, Wed Dec-23-15 09:56 AM
>so...God sent an angel to TELL Mary that she was going to
>give birth to God's son. Gabriel, the angel, didn't ASK Mary
>anything. she was told. considering she was a young woman or
>maybe even a girl...and God was a deity. w/all power in His
>hands and all that jazz. Alpha/Omega...you know the deal.
>what if she'd said 'no'? what would've happened to her? we
>know how God was at that point - He was still very Old
>Testament. he was into smiting ppl who disobeyed. and there
>was no salvation via Jesus - yet.
>
>given the power differential did Mary give meaningful consent
>to this whole thing? isn't this at least as bad as what
>happens when a young girl has sex w/a teacher? i know God
>wasn't her teacher exactly - He considers Himself her
>'father'. so...this is at least somewhat incestuous. we can
>ask Soon-Yi and Woody about it...we call that rape too. or
>molestation. either way we don't celebrate it.
>
>i think maybe she was raped.
>
>Luke 1:26-38
>
> 26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God
>to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed
>to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the
>virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said,
>"Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" 29 But she
>was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what
>sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her,
>"Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31
>And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and
>you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be
>called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to
>him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over
>the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be
>no end." 34 And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be,
>since I am a virgin?" 35 And the angel answered her, "The Holy
>Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will
>overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called
>holy, the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth
>in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth
>month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be
>impossible with God." 38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the
>servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."
>And the angel departed from her.
>
>
179845, i'm torn between this premise being lawyer-like or something an atheist
Posted by BigJazz, Wed Dec-23-15 09:56 AM
would say.

either way, i'm interested in watching this cook...


***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...
179846, don't think that has to be a one or the other deal
Posted by veritas, Wed Dec-23-15 10:08 AM
179847, verse 38 is consent
Posted by FLUIDJ, Wed Dec-23-15 09:56 AM

"Get ready..for your blessing..."
179848, is it meaningful consent though?
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:25 AM
what would've happened to her if she'd said 'no'?
179849, not to mention the bible was written
Posted by GirlChild, Wed Dec-23-15 01:36 PM
and edited by men only
179850, you know?
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 01:39 PM
179851, there are so many reason why the bible is problematic
Posted by GirlChild, Wed Dec-23-15 02:10 PM
and why out of all the religions christianity pisses me off the most
i don't see how these evangelical xtian extremists don't see that they are exactly like the crazy nut bag islamic terrorists.
179852, woulda named him Rock & Roll??
Posted by FLUIDJ, Wed Dec-23-15 03:08 PM
shit I dunno....

"Get ready..for your blessing..."
179853, there was no sex or sexual contact.
Posted by Cenario, Wed Dec-23-15 09:57 AM
besides...she consented.

""Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word"

It was an honor to have jesus.

like if a lady went to the gyn and the doc told her, "hark, I'm putting this fertilized egg in ya. He's gonna grow to be 6'8, 265 and dominate the basketball world. He will have a bad hairline. Go in peace."

No woman is gonna be like nah, i'll pass.
179854, lmao... awesome analogy
Posted by legsdiamond, Wed Dec-23-15 10:07 AM
179855, And yet she was impregnated. Without meaningful consent.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:08 AM
Considering the power dynamic her 'consent' is tainted. Maybe she just said yes bc she had no real choice. Like when a teacher or father or correctional officer ', et al, does the same thing. I think Mary gave 'consent' under duress or at least undue pressure. I'm not sure the conception was voluntary.
179856, Naw, she was a Nazareth bike that struck lucky.
Posted by TheAlbionist, Wed Dec-23-15 10:15 AM
Get stoned to death for adultery or use society's superstitions to your advantage to stay alive?

Mary was a hustler.
179857, This is a perfect example of when folks don't read/understand the Bible.
Posted by Case_One, Wed Dec-23-15 10:16 AM
Or they do not have a meaningful, submitted covenant relationship with God. No mature Christian would even think of such a evil thing as, "Did God rape Mary?" Such an idea is sick and or comes from a mind that is trying to create an atmosphere of confusion. I'm disgusted by the question. But I consider the source.
.
.
179858, you coulda used this opportunity to inform, bruh...
Posted by Big Kuntry, Wed Dec-23-15 10:20 AM
dont talk down. put them up on game - it might be some folk reading this that genuinely wanna know.
179859, The title and premise is click-bait-ish... so I get some of the emotion
Posted by Cocobrotha2, Wed Dec-23-15 10:32 AM
in his reply... the title was partially intended to shock the reader.

But there's also some genuinely compelling ideas that I'm sure have been discussed by theologians over the years... but has that discussion happened in the context of recent legal precedent? Does it even make sense to recast ancient "events" in contemporary contexts? Can we tease something out about the nature of faith and obedience in the Bible and the religion by engaging in this discussion?

Case doesn't go there... I'll be charitable and say that trolling is more entertaining to him.
179860, Big Kuntry has a good point
Posted by Ted Gee Seal, Wed Dec-23-15 02:55 PM
>in his reply... the title was partially intended to shock the
>reader.
>
>But there's also some genuinely compelling ideas that I'm sure
>have been discussed by theologians over the years... but has
>that discussion happened in the context of recent legal
>precedent? Does it even make sense to recast ancient "events"
>in contemporary contexts? Can we tease something out about the
>nature of faith and obedience in the Bible and the religion by
>engaging in this discussion?
>
>Case doesn't go there... I'll be charitable and say that
>trolling is more entertaining to him.

There are likely lay people who believe but have trouble with these points, or will now that they've read it. Even more important is thinking about how young people will approach the Bible given how attitudes are developing towards consent. The challenge as a Christian, I think, is down to how you approach those people. Do you give their questions and issues due consideration, or ignore them in favour of playing the man (in this instance SoWhat).

It's of no surprise that Christianity overall is diminishing in numbers, given that these people feel that the church doesn't care about them, and therefore can't feel God in their lives. The usual path of the church is to blame those people for leaving, which makes me wonder at what point does a Christian like that actually takes responsibility for turning people away from the faith, or whether for them that's somehow impossible so they can act the way they want and always place the responsibility elsewhere.
179861, This was a clear Bait Post.
Posted by Case_One, Wed Dec-23-15 11:20 AM
SoWhat was / in not interested in learning about the Bible or its truth, or having a reasonable dialog. So it is what it is. But thank you for your opinion. Merry Christmas.
.
.
.
179862, Rather than pearl-clutch, it's more constructive to answer
Posted by Teknontheou, Wed Dec-23-15 10:21 AM
the question. Almost everyone in here so far already has, and the answer has been "no, God did not rape Mary" from a couple different angles.

When you react the way you just did you make it seem like Christian doctrine and thought is too delicate to handle tough questions, which is not the case (no pun intended).
179863, lmao... yall are funny
Posted by legsdiamond, Wed Dec-23-15 10:26 AM
179864, It's clear that he got this Bait Post Q from the Christmas Song Post
Posted by Case_One, Wed Dec-23-15 11:22 AM
.
.
.
179865, yes, this question flows from my response in that post.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:40 AM
you're right about that.

and you're right that i've titled this post provocatively.
179866, You and him have both been here forever and you've both debated
Posted by Teknontheou, Wed Dec-23-15 11:44 AM
Christianity with each other the whole time. Why are you still getting sucked into religion shock posts like you just got here last week?
179867, I'm certainly glad "bait question" wasn't a stock Jesus response
Posted by Ted Gee Seal, Wed Dec-23-15 01:56 PM
Who knows how much of His wisdom would have been squandered had that been His stock response whenever someone was trying to trap Him.
179868, You're right. Faith is about not asking questions.
Posted by TheAlbionist, Wed Dec-23-15 10:27 AM
Seeing as you've got all the answers already... I don't know why you'd even bother conversing with anyone.
179869, Oh Jesus fuckin Christ .
Posted by Amritsar, Wed Dec-23-15 10:58 AM
179870, Oh sure.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:10 AM
I would also attempt to discredit the source rather than deal with substance if I were you. But I'm not you and I would instead examine the issues raised and would be troubled. Bc a deity basically raped a child impregnating her and then demands that we celebrate the act. It's odd.
179871, Keep it real with yourself. You weren't trying to learn anything
Posted by Case_One, Wed Dec-23-15 11:26 AM
You made a clear Bait Post, so don't try to hide your hand and act like your were at the front of the class asking questions with your Oooh Oooh hand raised,
.
.
.
179872, i asked a question - did God rape Mary?
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:34 AM
yes, it's a provocative question - i intended that it be so.

i'm not interested in being educated on Xtian doctrine on the issue b/c i already know it, thanks.

i'm asking if we can see a rape in the conception story when we interpret the story in a modern context that doesn't give the sort of deference that the Biblical interpretation rooted in Xtian doctrine will give. b/c of course in a Biblical interpretation there's no rape since as Tek pointed out God cannot sin and all of that. i knew that when i made the post.
179873, Dude, your'e a very smart person. So, don't play dimwitted
Posted by Case_One, Wed Dec-23-15 11:35 AM
Kill all the side talk. You knew what your were trying to do.


.
.
.
179874, yes, i just wrote out what i'm doing.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:38 AM
i'm engaging the board in a discussion about a modern interpretation of the Immaculate Conception that questions whether Mary gave meaningful consent to be impregnated by God.

answers rooted in Biblical interpretations that rely on Xtian doctrine aren't relevant to the discussion. however, i understand and accept the answer from that perspective - of course God didn't rape Mary when we read the story from that perspective. but i'm asking about another perspective that doesn't rely on Xtian doctrine.
179875, why not offer an actual explanation rather than indignation?
Posted by ConcreteCharlie, Wed Dec-23-15 01:00 PM
179876, Your point about not reading is spot on
Posted by Lil Rabies, Thu Dec-24-15 03:05 PM
So what is trying to use a lens that doesn't exist for a discussion. You have to have an understanding of God to ask why at this point if divine conception is rape. At this point in the story, it's like God's males have been ordered to Cut their dicks. You don't interpret any story without context. There is a double standard frequently used when people want to treat the bible as a story, but then don't want to interpret it the same way you would Catch 22.
179877, and you said you didnt get the appeal of Opie and Andy
Posted by legsdiamond, Wed Dec-23-15 10:21 AM
179878, lol
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:11 AM
179879, RE: did God rape Mary?
Posted by double 0, Wed Dec-23-15 10:32 AM
Egypt origin story they stole it from was way better...

sexing dead people..

much more poppin
179880, What are you referring to?
Posted by Numba_33, Wed Dec-23-15 12:27 PM
179881, RE: What are you referring to?
Posted by double 0, Wed Dec-23-15 01:03 PM
Horus....

Immaculate conception.. moms Isis sexes dead dad Osiris

If you care to nerd out

http://www.academia.edu/1954926/Divine_Mothers_The_Influence_of_Isis_on_the_Virgin_Mary_in_Egyptian_Lactans-Iconography
179882, Ausar, Auset and Heru, actually
Posted by Garhart Poppwell, Thu Dec-24-15 10:07 AM
It's generally considered bad form to use the European names for them.
179883, RE: Ausar, Auset and Heru, actually
Posted by double 0, Thu Dec-24-15 11:11 PM
no hotep
179884, Joseph was definitely cuckolded
Posted by gumz, Wed Dec-23-15 10:41 AM
179885, for sure.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:25 AM
179886, '(Based) God you can fuck my bitch' - Joey
Posted by Amritsar, Wed Dec-23-15 11:01 AM
Seriously tho I'd be super jealous if I was Joseph


God can create everything ...including the size of his dick


He probably gave Mary that work in the sheets man.
179887, i would've called Maury.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:36 AM
like...this woman...my FIANCEE is pregnant. i know *I* didn't fuck her. b/c she won't give up the dugout. but now she's knocked up and claims the GOD HIMSELF is her baby daddy.

hell no. i'd want the baby tested.
179888, The bible is filled from beginning to end ...
Posted by TR808, Wed Dec-23-15 11:14 AM
With examples of how God spoke with humans and they had the choice to listen or go they own route...

first example is Adam and Eve... they were told what they could do and what the consequences would be if they didnt listen...

Cain and Abel... Cain was warned about his attitude... but he didnt listen and murdered his brother...

Abraham... was told that if he left his home and relied on God he would be blessed....

Lot...God said he would destroy Sodom and Gomorah.. Lot actually went back and forth with God... about destroying the city...

Moses...God told moses to lead Isreal but Moses initially said he could not do it... then he said he would do it but needed someone to talk for him which was Aaron..

Solomon... God asked him what he wanted and Solomon asked for wisdom...his choice...


Naomi and Ruth.. in the book of Ruth she had the choice of leaving and going back to worshiping other gods.. she chose to stay..

.... I could go on but perhaps reading the bible would be good for you instead of trying to apply a non spiritual mindset to something intended for spiritual people...


Kinda like saying ..did the United States Murder Osama Bin Laden..
179889, thank u
Posted by ambient1, Wed Dec-23-15 11:17 AM
179890, this is part of my point.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:31 AM
what would've happened to Mary if she'd said she didn't want to be God's baby mama?

we see how He threatened others as you've pointed out.

given that Mary was a poor girl and God was the omnipotent deity - was she able to give meaningful consent to the conception? or was her will overborne?

i'd be more comfortable w/the story if God had given her at least a chance to consider the offer. hell, i'd feel better about it if God had actually made an OFFER and not merely issued a demand. b/c her womb is hers and she should've been able to decide for real if she wanted to be Jesus' mother. i dunno that she did. i dunno that she could've given actual consent b/c of the difference in the power she held versus the power God held.

i've never been okay w/the conception story though. i find it incredibly creepy (he sent an angel to her in the middle of the night) and now i think it's at least somewhat rapey.

and FTR i've read 2/3 of the Bible, player. i was a somewhat serious Xtian in my youth. i grew up attending church 2 or 3x per week. i was Baptist and then Pentecostal.
179891, remember how he asked Jonah if he wanted to get in that whale?
Posted by Rjcc, Wed Dec-23-15 11:43 AM

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at
179892, I just had a conversation yesterday about the ethics of the Origin Story
Posted by lonesome_d, Wed Dec-23-15 11:39 AM
Even if it's not rape, it's out of wedlock pregnancy.

Mary is described as 'ever virgin' - so did she slack in her wifely duties to Joseph following their marriage of convenience?

All of which reminded me of stories I learned in studying history but don't remember well, but I believe a princess of some sort was seduced by a guy who dressed as an angel and came through her window telling her he was a messenger from God. If memory serves he got caught and defenestrated. Can't find anything online though so maybe I'm misremembering.
179893, back in Sunday School when i was a teen i posed a question
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 11:45 AM
wondering if Joseph suffered any difficulty when the ppl in his community found out that his fiancee was pregnant. the Bible doesn't tell us when the 2 married but we know that Joseph didn't get to bang until after she gave birth. so yeah she slacked on her duties until after the birth (maybe she hooked him up in other ways though).

anyway, we see that Joseph wanted to bail at first b/c he understood the difficulty of the situation. but he was convinced to stay. i can't imagine the 2 of them explaining the pregnancy to their parents and the larger community.
179894, My guess: it probably happened more than we realize and they
Posted by Teknontheou, Wed Dec-23-15 11:54 AM
just dealt with whatever people had to say.

In addition, if both of y'all have been visited by angels and you know your lady is carrying God's Son, you're going to care alot less about what others have to say. That's just me using logic based on what's given in the text.
179895, yeah but it couldn't have been easy.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 12:01 PM
back then women got stoned for stepping out of line. at least that was the law. maybe it wasn't enforced very much. b/c i don't see how she wasn't stoned - or even charged. of course, it was a miracle and all of that but even Jesus was punished for His violations of the various laws of the land. Mary at least looked like she was guilty of a pretty serious offense. it's odd that it wasn't ever addressed.

and anyway i asked when i was a teen b/c i imagined me or any of my peers going to our parents w/THAT story - she's knocked up but i didn't do it it was God. or her saying yeah i'm knocked up but i'm still a virgin. it's preposterous. i can't imagine the ppl around them accepted that easily. but the Bible doesn't say much of anything about that.
179896, maybe she wasn't showing, and J 'came early'
Posted by lonesome_d, Wed Dec-23-15 11:55 AM
It's not like (despite the star, the angels, and all) they advertised Jesus's true paternity anyway, so whatever explanation was offered would be interesting.

> we know that
>Joseph didn't get to bang until after she gave birth.

According to catholic and some other doctrines, HE NEVER BANGED. Mary remained a virgin her entire life - the doctrine of perpetual virginity. The idea of Mary's perpetual virginity took root fairly quickly - within the first few centuries after Christ - and has maintained a hold on the Christian imagination ever since.

There's some difficulty over this as the Bible refers to Jesus's brothers but official Catholic doctrine skirts that issue.
179897, that's right! i forgot about the Catholics and the eternal virginity thing.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 12:02 PM
that's so weird.

LOL
179898, try explaining it to kids sometime
Posted by lonesome_d, Wed Dec-23-15 12:15 PM
I was raised Catholic so I insist (if we're to celebrate Christmas) we go to Church on Christmas eve. But for kids who are not exposed to Catholicism on a regular basis the whole thing is just weird.

I was brushing up my 5 year old on the reason for the season the other day - avoiding the difficult-to-grasp question of divine paternity without penetration - and the kid said 'wait! how was the baby God? Thhat doesn't make any sense! It's just, like, so... weird."
179899, LOL!
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 12:23 PM
as confused as a i was by the whole thing when i was a kid i can understand.

the whole story kinda unravels when one asks too many questions. of course in Sunday School the typical answer was that i couldn't comprehend God's logic b/c i'm not God. of course that answer never set well w/me.
179900, I remember sitting in the class
Posted by Rjcc, Wed Dec-23-15 01:23 PM
>>the whole story kinda unravels when one asks too many questions. of course in Sunday School the typical answer was that i couldn't comprehend God's logic b/c i'm not God. of course that answer never set well w/me.


looking around at the other kids like "so this is a joke right? They're going to give us the real explanation later?"

there was no real explanation.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at
179901, you know the annunciation is exactly 9 months before xmas, though
Posted by janey, Wed Dec-23-15 01:06 PM
the doctrine is that He was right on time :-)

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people
179902, You make a good point here
Posted by Lil Rabies, Thu Dec-24-15 03:13 PM
There maybe some controversy about how Joseph was "convinced". I believe they say he was visited by an Angel. Angels are very frightening to humans. Check out how people reacted to seeing them anywhere in the Old Testament: terror.
179903, Zeus was pretty rapey. The Christian God? Meh, needle dick maybe?
Posted by ConcreteCharlie, Wed Dec-23-15 12:59 PM
It seems like he was just sneaky, in and out without a fuss.
179904, zeus was such a weird dude
Posted by Rjcc, Wed Dec-23-15 01:02 PM

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at
179905, lol i missed this one, but yeah
Posted by blackrussian, Wed Dec-23-15 01:07 PM
179906, Zeus was gettin' his
Posted by Selassie I God, Thu Dec-24-15 03:38 PM
http://s1298.photobucket.com/user/undertakerwlf/media/bio%20cards/Zeus_zps9126ca22.jpg.html
179907, I'm more disturbed by Leda and the Swan
Posted by blackrussian, Wed Dec-23-15 01:04 PM
Because Leda turned down Zeus's advances, he turned himself into a swan and 'seduced' her. Imagine being raped by a SWAN!
179908, right??
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 01:19 PM
i was so bothered by that story. LOL
179909, That was his creation. He could mod her up if he wanted.
Posted by Errol Walton Barrow, Wed Dec-23-15 01:11 PM
It's like changing parameters on Data, or when Jimmy Smits wiped R2D2 and C3PO's memory in Star Wars. I feel like you should have more leeway with things created than with your own peer group.

Also the Holy Spirit didn't penetrate her, more like 'saturated' her. There was nothing sexual, or forcible about it. You'd have to lower the charge to criminal mischief or something, cuz I feel like God walks on rape charges.
179910, I think he "covered" her, like animals are "covered" when inseminated through natural means
Posted by janey, Wed Dec-23-15 01:15 PM
and animal sex is uh animalistic, so I'm going with rape.



~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people
179911, her body her choice.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 01:23 PM
but yes i agree that God just basically treated her as if He could do whatever He wanted w/her body as if it's His and not hers.

while i agree the prosecution might have trouble scoring a conviction in a criminal case related to the Immaculate Conception, i can still see that there was some impropriety in it when i look at the story through a modern lens w/o giving deference to God.
179912, Immaculate Conceneption was actually Mary's conception, I think
Posted by lonesome_d, Wed Dec-23-15 01:34 PM
>while i agree the prosecution might have trouble scoring a
>conviction in a criminal case related to the Immaculate
>Conception,

and 'immaculate' refers specifically to Mary being conceived and born *free of original sin*.


179913, maybe to some Catholics and div school students.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 01:37 PM
but in the gen pop when we say 'Immaculate Conception' we're referring to Jesus's conception. it was 'immaculate' in that there was no sex or other penetration and Mary was a virgin.

or at least that's what *i* meant when i used the phrase as i've heard it used the overwhelming majority of times i've heard it used.
179914, well uh it doesn't make sense on the calendar
Posted by janey, Wed Dec-23-15 01:49 PM
the feast of the immaculate conception is December 8. The feast of the assumption is March 25. Which one falls 9 months before Xmas?



~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people
179915, was Mary conceived on December 8?
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 01:53 PM
lol
179916, yes she was :-)
Posted by janey, Wed Dec-23-15 02:09 PM
and she was assumed into heaven on August 15. Not sure of the exact year
~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people
179917, right on.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 02:16 PM
179918, May as well be 1950 - funnest use of papal infallibility ever?
Posted by Walleye, Wed Dec-23-15 03:59 PM
August 15th is annually known to me as "that holy day of obligation that I have literally never remembered in time to make it to church."
179919, this is correct
Posted by cgonz00cc, Wed Dec-23-15 02:54 PM
179920, Yeah it does read like a messed up story
Posted by Errol Walton Barrow, Wed Dec-23-15 03:57 PM
I'm just trying to look at it from the Big Homie's point of view. It'd be no different for him than when we rip up earth with a plow to plant seeds in it. Or when we watch nature documentaries and the lion just jumps on the lioness and starts stroking. Is there consent there? It's just natural.

In the whole scheme of the Bible the Immaculate Conception is not as hardcore as other things done. This is Almighty"I genocided the world with water"God we're talking about after all.
179921, No. God knew her heart.
Posted by Ted Gee Seal, Wed Dec-23-15 02:03 PM
Some of the phrasing is problematic but I think that's partly down to the time when those events were put into language. They had different attitudes to consent back then and so skipped over some of the nuance of what actually happened.

179922, that's a pretty bold justification but makes the most sense i guess
Posted by MiracleRic, Wed Dec-23-15 02:06 PM
179923, given the power differential
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 02:17 PM
(God was omnipotent and Mary was...not) i don't see how she could've given meaningful/actual consent. like when an accused rapist claims his 12 year old victim 'wanted it'. the coercion/duress/et al is assumed.
179924, Free will.
Posted by Ted Gee Seal, Wed Dec-23-15 02:37 PM
I think given how fucked up this earth is despite God's commands it's pretty clear that a power differential doesn't get in the way of a disobedient heart. As someone else said there are other moments in the Bible where there was a back and forth between God and a person where their hearts weren't immediately in it.

I think it undermines any religious person's free obedience to God to say that His commands are given under some sort of duress because of a power differential. Yes, religion can be used that way between those in the church who prey on the vulnerable. But a relationship with God is different, especially when grace and forgiveness are part of the equation (yes Jesus hadn't died on the cross at this point, but still).

Mary was already ride or die for God, out of her own free will.
179925, Plenty young girls have sex with powerful adult of their own 'will'.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 03:20 PM
The men are still considered rapists or at least we don't celebrate the sex. We say those girls can't offer real consent bc of the power dynamic. I can't imagine a greater power differential than the one between Mary and God. If she said 'no' He likely would smite her. Or at least she might've thought so. But anyway whether she thought she 'wanted it' isnt the issue bc she was too young to know for sure. And God took advantage to serve HIS plan. He could've chosen a rich girl or a woman or a queen - a woman with more agency. But no - He chose a poor girl. A helpless, defenseless girl who was already engaged to be married. Outside of the Xtian interpretation (which is where this discussion is happening) that's rape, imo.
179926, RE: Plenty young girls have sex with powerful adult of their own 'will'.
Posted by Ted Gee Seal, Wed Dec-23-15 03:46 PM
>The men are still considered rapists or at least we don't
>celebrate the sex. We say those girls can't offer real consent
>bc of the power dynamic. I can't imagine a greater power
>differential than the one between Mary and God.

I'll stipulate to the power differential counsellor.

>If she said
>'no' He likely would smite her. Or at least she might've
>thought so.
>But anyway whether she thought she 'wanted it'
>isnt the issue bc she was too young to know for sure.

So, if she had been married to Joseph at this point and decided to have a child at his request that wouldn't be consensual either? Are we basically all children conceived back in these times are products of rape because of the power differential between men and women at this point?

Lets not forget that life expectancy isn't great and people had to get on with life much faster than we do nowadays.

>And God
>took advantage to serve HIS plan. He could've chosen a rich
>girl or a woman or a queen - a woman with more agency. But no
>- He chose a poor girl. A helpless, defenseless girl who was
>already engaged to be married.

Just because she was poor doesn't mean she wasn't strong with a mind of her own. Agency in this instance is spiritual, not physical. Being rich or woman doesn't provide more agency in the face of God.


>Outside of the Xtian
>interpretation (which is where this discussion is happening)
>that's rape, imo.

Only because you're relating it to earthly instances where powerful men are intentionally leveraging their power to get what they want. I've covered how this can't be a reasonable assertion in this instance where the powerful side of the equation can actually see the other party's heart and demonstrably allows humans free will.

Since there apparently isn't reliable information as to how old Mary was at the point of conception the underage line is tenuous too IMO.
179927, Sure.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 03:49 PM
She was raped though.
179928, k.
Posted by Ted Gee Seal, Wed Dec-23-15 04:03 PM
179929,
Posted by MiracleRic, Thu Dec-24-15 09:18 AM
179930, Plenty young girls have sex with powerful men of their own 'will'.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 03:22 PM
The men are still considered rapists or at least we don't celebrate the sex. We say those girls can't offer real consent bc of the power dynamic. I can't imagine a greater power differential than the one between Mary and God. If she said 'no' He likely would smite her. Or at least she might've thought so. But anyway whether she thought she 'wanted it' isnt the issue bc she was too young to know for sure. And God took advantage to serve HIS plan. He could've chosen a rich girl or a woman or a queen - a woman with more agency. But no - He chose a poor girl. A helpless, defenseless girl who was already engaged to be married. Outside of the Xtian interpretation (which is where this discussion is happening) that's rape, imo.
179931, So God just gets to skate on that Robin Thicke?
Posted by magilla vanilla, Thu Dec-24-15 09:55 AM
179932, R Kelly the God (c) that crazy guy
Posted by MiracleRic, Wed Dec-23-15 02:05 PM
179933, God: 'Have a baby by me baby. Be a notre dame'
Posted by Mr. ManC, Wed Dec-23-15 02:14 PM
179934, lol
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 02:19 PM
179935, there's no way you seriously thought this
Posted by atruhead, Wed Dec-23-15 02:53 PM
it's 2 days before Christmas, you wanted to troll and upset people. congratulations if this is some sort of proud of achievement
179936, RE: there's no way you seriously thought this
Posted by Ted Gee Seal, Wed Dec-23-15 03:04 PM
>it's 2 days before Christmas, you wanted to troll and upset
>people. congratulations if this is some sort of proud of
>achievement

Whether SoWhat did or didn't is immaterial. Given the world kids are growing up in now, I'll bet this isn't the first and it won't be the last time this issue is raised.

I really don't get the point of getting upset because a question or assertion potentially creates confusion or is a provocation. As a Christian, I always have the opportunity to clear up the confusion, if not for the person asking the question, then for believers who might also struggle with the same question.

I mean, shouldn't Christians be begging for more posts like this? A couple of days out from Christmas and we're talking about the Bible. It's a great opportunity to show how open and accepting we can be, but also firm in our own beliefs, in the most considerate and empathetic way.
179937, my point is I dont feel it was a genuine question of curiosity
Posted by atruhead, Wed Dec-23-15 03:10 PM
intent is everything, and if your intent is pissing people off, how are you doing any better than intolerant Christians?
179938, RE: my point is I dont feel it was a genuine question of curiosity
Posted by Ted Gee Seal, Wed Dec-23-15 03:21 PM
>intent is everything, and if your intent is pissing people
>off, how are you doing any better than intolerant Christians?

Yep, but even if that is so, the question is open to appropriate response.

I think Jesus' example is instructive here:

15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

Yes Jesus called out the intent, but still responded to the question.
179939, good point. The Pharasees were trolling hard there
Posted by Errol Walton Barrow, Wed Dec-23-15 04:02 PM
but it still made for a clear eyed discussion.
179940, It came up as I responded to the Bad Xmas Songs post.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 03:12 PM
As I analyzed Little Drummer Boy I referred to Jesus as an illegitimate child as he was conceived out of wedlock by someone other than his mother's fiancé, Joseph. It occurred to me that Mary was maybe raped when I considered the facts - she was a girl and God was an omnipotent deity. And then I made this post. I almost posted on FB but I thought the discussion might be too hot for FB.
179941, and 3/4 of this post is honest legit discussion
Posted by GriftyMcgrift, Thu Dec-24-15 05:23 PM


and then theres the few people wanting to make it go poast by claiming you only wanted to poast


too funny
179942, Don't be fooled
Posted by Boogie Stimuli, Sun Dec-27-15 01:16 AM
>and then theres the few people wanting to make it go poast by
>claiming you only wanted to poast
>

No, there are the few who see through the guy.
He intentionally provokes people with his posts and responses often.
Much of what he posts is intentional provocation under the guise of self-expression.
I can start pointing it out to you if you really don't see it.

179943, honestly there is no way of knowing this
Posted by Mr. ManC, Wed Dec-23-15 03:10 PM
without knowing what Mary was wearing.


to be serious though, in the scripture you pulled from Luke, the angel speaks on pregnancy in a future tense. You WILL become pregnant. It implies that she has not yet conceived until after she has consented anyway, so not rape.

179944, You WILL.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 03:24 PM
Not 'hey, do you mind if..?' Or 'Do you want to...?'

A directive not a request.
179945, Yeah, but you WILL still means not yet.
Posted by Mr. ManC, Wed Dec-23-15 04:15 PM
"I will pay you tomorrow" doesn't mean money is in you pocket today.

If she didn't consent, she could have said so, and it would have gone from you WILL to you WONT, haha

179946, maybe.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 04:29 PM
179947, typa question a nigga who hates christmas cards would ask
Posted by legsdiamond, Wed Dec-23-15 03:14 PM
179948, Only on THIS site would this conversation occur
Posted by DVS, Wed Dec-23-15 03:22 PM
#Godwasarapist

D
179949, I almost posted it on FB
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 03:25 PM
but I thought better of it. Plus I figured you ppl are more likely to actually engage the discussion without just clutching the pearls.
179950, Luke 1:38 is consent and the Magnificat is downright enthusiasm
Posted by Walleye, Wed Dec-23-15 03:30 PM
I think the fact that she responds means she understood it as a request. The difference in power dynamic is well-taken, but it seems like having all this occur without actual intercourse is a pretty standup attempt to mitigate that.

/christmas'd
179951, She was impregnated and unable to consent.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 03:37 PM
Even without intercourse - her body was hijacked by the Alpha and Omega. Her body her choice but I dunno that she really had a choice.
179952, Since God is outside of time, God wasn't hijacking - just informing
Posted by Walleye, Wed Dec-23-15 03:44 PM
The Alpha and the Omega is good word choice here. As far as God is concerned, Mary was always going to be pregnant. Foreknowledge may be predestination but it's not coercion.
179953, Not requesting - informing.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 03:46 PM
She had no choice. It was gonna happen without regard for what SHE wanted. Her consent or lack thereof was not a factor.

That's my point. That's rape. Or at least rape-adjacent.
179954, I was going to say that she had a choice by NOT being so holy
Posted by Walleye, Wed Dec-23-15 03:55 PM
But then I realized that I would have been the first person ever to characterize extreme holiness and faithfulness to the Lord as "asking for it"

I still think her response indicates that she took it as a question. Maybe they didn't have question marks in Koine?

Or I can just stick to the outside-of-time angle: that God informing her here isn't the same thing as, say, a rapist informing a victim "you're about to get raped". Since everything occurs in one timeless act, it's more like... professional courtesy. Which, you're right, means she can't consent. But furthermore maybe means none of us really consent to anything and then maybe destabilizes our judicial system in a fuller way than trying to prosecute God for a 2000 year old sex crime.
179955, Lol
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 03:58 PM
I doubt a prosecutor would charge the Holy Spirit with a crime (talk about prosecutorial bias!!) or that a jury would convict THS (who could be impartial? who are THS's peers?). But outside of that the conception story is creepy as all hell and pretty rapey. That's all I'm saying. Lol
179956, And maybe creepier by trying to make it less rapey
Posted by Walleye, Wed Dec-23-15 04:02 PM
Like, there are plenty of mythological analogues for the gods coming down and banging their way through mortal civilization. If you want to treat the annunciation as something that owes a lot to those traditions, it's almost worse that they wrote and were like "yeah, but it's okay because there's no sex. that makes sense right? it's not like we've got Zeus fucking Io and turning her into a cow. we kept it classy."
179957, lol
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 04:25 PM
agreed.
179958, RE: did God rape Mary?
Posted by Novembersgift, Wed Dec-23-15 03:58 PM
I think it's an interesting question and one I've discussed with people before in slightly different way.
Saw on the news earlier this week that there's a local play happening that retells the birth of Jesus with the story set in present-day Brooklyn. That led me to thinking about how a teen girl who showed up pregnant yet insisted she was a virgin, impregnated by God and destined to bring forth a savior would be received. Yall better hope your Lord doesn't try to come back the same way he got here because no one would believe that story.

I digress... It got me to thinking about the story of Jesus' conception. People of the Bible did all kinds of things because God said so and people today would do so too. I don't think "choice" would've even factored in. I don't think Abraham wanted to kill Isaac but he did choose to do so... he chose to obey God and if a consequence of that was to kill his son, then so be it. He trusted that God knew things he did not. Mary probably also believed as such and it never occurred to her seriously to choose otherwise, if choice was even a consideration.

I'm no Christian but I would think that faith should withstand questioning, curiosity and criticism. Indeed, it should be viewed as an opportunity. A lot of Christian folk get super defensive about it though, as though even calling the question is an affront. We live in a majority Christian country and people of other faiths/no faith are constantly bombarded with pro-Christian imagery, messaging, customs, etc. I think we can deal with a few hypothetical, imaginative questions that invite people to think. Even as we wrap presents and listen to Mariah Carey's Christmas album on endless, godforsaken loop.
179959, *daps*
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 04:00 PM
179960, RE: *daps*
Posted by Novembersgift, Wed Dec-23-15 04:23 PM
My LS who is in seminary right now just posted about this recently on FB:
"I'm feeling so weird about Mary, this word "virgin," and the daggon Angel standing in her living room. This "virgin" word makes me itch. I don't care how it was intended. How we use it now to talk about Mary? Makes me itch.
How you gon say "no thanks" to an angel in your living room, fam? How?!?!"

The discussion emerging is interesting with several other women who went to seminary speaking about preaching the power of Mary in her own right and not necessarily deriving from her virginity.

" I'll have to share my sermon with you that I'm preaching this Sunday. The turn that I'm making is that Mary's virginity might be a device used by the writers to express how the Christ-power that is to grow within her is not put there by any other human--especially not a man. And then taking that to discuss the Christ-power in us all and how it's between us and God. This is not to say the whole thing doesn't make me itch, too. That's just where I'm taking it this week. We have whitewashed/"purified" Mary so much that her virginity has become about her "purity" rather than her power to house and deliver Christ in the midst of her social location. And yet she still got stuck in a barn."

Just thought that ongoing convo was interesting in that it's being led and engaged in by Christians, theologians, women, feminists, queer POC, etc. Not just people trying to "troll" on here.
179961, word up.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 04:28 PM
i knew i couldn't be the only person who's at least a little troubled by the conception story.
179962, Bruh, I'm African & brought this up as a kid. Shyt, almost got me stoned!
Posted by FILF, Wed Dec-23-15 11:18 PM
>i knew i couldn't be the only person who's at least a little
>troubled by the conception story.
179963, Here's what I think, SoWhat...
Posted by MME, Wed Dec-23-15 04:27 PM
I think if Mary had said no...God would have simply found someone else. Simple. I don't think He would've smitten her or anything like that. He would have simply moved on and found another young woman.

But more to the point about the rape thing, I see what you're saying, but I don't see it that way because God was all knowing and omnipotent and he knew Mary loved Him and had a heart for God. So that's why I think he told her what He was going to do.

My 2 cents. :)
179964, great.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 04:30 PM
i've always thought the story was creepy - even as a kid. and as an adult i think it's even more creepy than i did then.

and now i see that's also at least somewhat rapey.
179965, RE: great.
Posted by MME, Wed Dec-23-15 04:48 PM
>i've always thought the story was creepy - even as a kid.
>and as an adult i think it's even more creepy than i did
>then.
>
>and now i see that's also at least somewhat rapey.

I'm sorry :(
179966, ok.
Posted by SoWhat, Wed Dec-23-15 04:52 PM
179967, Reread it with Gabriel used as a symbolism
Posted by imcvspl, Wed Dec-23-15 09:55 PM

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."
179968, well, she *was* under the age of consent
Posted by theprofessional, Wed Dec-23-15 10:50 PM
as a society, we've decided that it's not possible for an underage girl to consent to sex with an adult male. any sexual contact in that scenario is rape, no matter what the girl says, due to the difference in maturity/power/etc of the two individuals involved. that difference is magnified by infinity when talking about the all-powerful creator of the universe versus an underage girl. by our society's definition, it wouldn't be possible for mary to consent (or really any woman of any age, if we use discrepancy in maturity/power as a measure of consent). verse 38 is irrelevant to the discussion.

"rape" is a loaded word here though, because, as far as we know, there was no sexual contact involved in the conception. God just spoke it and it was. but still, there's the issue of impregnating an underage girl (keeping in mind that she's underage by our standards, not the standards of the time, for whatever that's worth).

i can see why people are mad about the question; it's easy to take the wrong way. but it's an interesting discussion about the things we as a society have chosen to normalize versus things that are immediately repulsive to us, and how thin that line actually is, especially when it comes to religion.
179969, No, he just molested her but only in sprit - Corinthians 2:16
Posted by FILF, Wed Dec-23-15 10:59 PM
179970, 'Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown!'
Posted by rdhull, Wed Dec-23-15 11:23 PM
lol
179971, I initially had a Caseone reaction.
Posted by Buddy_Gilapagos, Thu Dec-24-15 09:06 AM
and said I wouldn't touch this post...but of course curiosity got the best of me.

I am glad I did because the exercise of thinking it through allows me to get to a good answer and strengthen my conviction. I think the strongest opinions are the ones that survive intense scrutiny.

Anyway, I think there are three strong answers.

1. There was no rape because there was no sex. It's a technical answer and doesn't address whether there was a violation of her body against her will but you can't have rape without sex of physical contact.

2. I think the strongest answer is that there was consent per the verse cited above.

3. Good is omniscient, so he knew Mary was down. Same way if I unexpectedly threw my wife on the bed, and strip her clothes off and we did it and she loved it. I know my wife, I know what she likes. I knew she would enjoy it, so it's all good. Same with God and Mary. Like someone said above, if Mary wasn't down, he wouldn't have selected her in the first place.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
179972, He got mind-control over these hoes.
Posted by 2.tears.in.a.bucket, Thu Dec-24-15 10:24 AM
the original capt. save 'em.

they abandon poles & street-corners for tha god
179973, I'm just gonna drop 1 John 3:8 and let it cook for the thinking person
Posted by Case_One, Thu Dec-24-15 10:36 AM
I took a nap yesterday and when I woke up the Holy Spirit gave me this scripture and showed me how the scripture covers the OP intention, question, and the answer to the question. It can even take you deeper into the matter if you seek understanding.



1 John 3:8 – New International Version (NIV)

8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.



.
.
.
179974, It's not that deep, you went ad hominem. That's the easy route.
Posted by Buddy_Gilapagos, Thu Dec-24-15 03:48 PM

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
179975, If you got that then you missed the point, meaning, and insight.
Posted by Case_One, Thu Dec-24-15 05:39 PM
And I didn't go any route. That's another miss by you too.
.
.
.
179976, RE: If you got that then you missed the point, meaning, and insight.
Posted by MME, Thu Dec-24-15 07:55 PM
>And I didn't go any route. That's another miss by you too.


Of course it was. Everyone else misses everything....except you. You don't miss anything.

Oh, .....#307....you did miss that. Intentionally.

Happy Holidays.
179977, I hope that you receive the gift of happiness this year.
Posted by Case_One, Thu Dec-24-15 09:17 PM

.
.
.
179978, fuck you.
Posted by MME, Fri Dec-25-15 10:11 AM
>
>.
>.
>.
179979, Maybe next year.
Posted by Case_One, Sat Dec-26-15 12:26 PM

.
.
.
179980, LOL
Posted by Mynoriti, Sat Dec-26-15 12:38 PM
179981, lmao
Posted by legsdiamond, Sat Dec-26-15 08:08 PM
179982, Maybe next year you'll explain #307.
Posted by MME, Sun Dec-27-15 11:21 AM
>
>.
>.
>.
179983, You must have gotten a lump of Coal.
Posted by Case_One, Sun Dec-27-15 02:08 PM
Figures.
.
.
.
179984, ...and yet...still no explanation of 307
Posted by MME, Sun Dec-27-15 04:01 PM
>Figures.

You bet it does.

179985, one glaring thing being overlooked from the OP
Posted by Mr. ManC, Thu Dec-24-15 09:13 PM
scripture I think adds a lot of context that is not being appreciated for context:

"And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God." 38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her."


Dont overlook 1. That Mary's cuzzo was Elizabeth, and her being with child was basically a miracle, one her and her husband desperately prayed for. Mary knew of this news for 6 months before Gabriel stepped to her with what I still see as a proposition.

It's not rape because as a devout Hebrew woman her and many generatioms before had been waiting for the Messiah, so for an angel to step up on some "I Choose You" with Willie Hutch in the background, her faith already gave consent. This was laid in the ground work since Genesis, and then God came down and blessed Elizabeth, and Mary heard. It's much less creepy when you think of it from the perspective of a people waiting on their savior, and not on some Maury who's the daddy steez.

$0.02

179986, No because it is quite obvious
Posted by luminous, Fri Dec-25-15 03:43 PM
That Mary had concentual sex with joesph... The dude she was shacking up with... Or maybe she jacked him off then fingered herself, thus preserving her virginity, but also still getting pregnant...
179987, If this was a deity from any other culture..
Posted by Tw3nty, Sat Dec-26-15 11:18 AM
Niggas would be screaming rape.
Cognitive dissonance won't allow Christians to be fair or reasonable.
It's rape B.
She did not ask or consent to pregnancy, even if there isn't sexual contact.

Also the word "virgin" did not always mean the same thing. In cultures in Northern Africa and the Middle East virgin usually meant someone who has never given birth.
If that's the case they date raped her.
179988, Mary didn't conceive Jesus until AFTER
Posted by Mr. ManC, Sat Dec-26-15 11:56 AM
she gave consent to Gabriel. She said she was a servant of the Lord, then accepted, THEN was with child.

179989, She was 14, hence rape
Posted by Tw3nty, Sat Dec-26-15 01:10 PM
179990, the world was created in 7 days in
Posted by Mr. ManC, Sat Dec-26-15 02:31 PM
this context. How old is 14 really?

Seriously though, her being 14 =/= an automatic qualifier for rape. She was with Joseph as well at the time, which I suppose makes him a rapist AND pedophile.

Context is key to anything and everything in the Bible.

179991, Don't we have to know the age of consent there at the time?
Posted by Boogie Stimuli, Sun Dec-27-15 02:02 PM
In the R.Kelly post, SoWhat argued that
Prince wasn't guilty because the age of
consent where he was is 16, so according
to the very author of this post, the laws
of the land determine right and wrong.
179992, Nope
Posted by RS, Sat Dec-26-15 03:53 PM
Mary, the mother of Jesus, who doesn't exist? nope, not at all.
179993, annnnnnd here we go
Posted by Garhart Poppwell, Sat Dec-26-15 07:08 PM
>Mary, the mother of Jesus, who doesn't exist? nope, not at
>all.