1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did God rape Mary?

Discussion in 'Theological Concepts' started by Bloomdido, Jul 30, 2009.

  1. John Thiel

    John Thiel Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    77
    Ratings:
    +2
    This topic statement is not blasphemous, but it seems like it would be outside the scope of a religious discussion.
     
  2. kai

    kai ragamuffin

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    16,610
    Ratings:
    +1,147
    philosophically speaking, did Mary permit it ,if she was the chosen "vessel" at her own birth?
     
  3. InformedIgnorance

    InformedIgnorance Do you 'know' or believe?

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,739
    Ratings:
    +237
    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?
     
  4. silenceinmotion

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Messages:
    39
    Ratings:
    +2
    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.
     
  5. Alceste

    Alceste Vagabond

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    26,030
    Ratings:
    +2,886
    Never happened. Wasn't rape.
     
  6. Me Myself

    Me Myself Back to my username

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    18,858
    Ratings:
    +962
    Without penetration, it is not rape.
     
  7. Me Myself

    Me Myself Back to my username

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    18,858
    Ratings:
    +962
    It´s still funny that God impregnated his own mommy though :D
     
  8. InformedIgnorance

    InformedIgnorance Do you 'know' or believe?

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,739
    Ratings:
    +237
    It COULD still be called exploitation without penetration though.
     
  9. John Thiel

    John Thiel Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    77
    Ratings:
    +2
    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.
     
Loading...