Did God rape Mary?

[sandy whitelinger]

By whose definition and to whom or what do they not apply? God does enough ipugning on his own without any help from me.

How about Merriam-Webster's definitions.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Indeed. Something without a penis, testicles, or sperm can't inseminate anything.

Nor rape.

 

[Renji]

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 don't think its a rape or any sexual intervention. Rape involves physical contact of genitals and might involve physical, verbal or emotional abuse. But God is a spirit so He cannot have contact with Mary physically and also, it is not mentioned that God abused Mary through words,etc. She is also not forced to bear Jesus Christ on her womb. She just said "Let it be done to me according to your Word."

 

[MissAlice]

But God is a spirit so He cannot have contact with Mary physically

Well I could be open to the possiblity that Mary may not have been raped. However, if there was no physical contact, how was it physically possible for Mary to concieve Jesus in the first place?

I guess I'm having trouble understanding why Christianity especially in this day and age would accept this to be fact.

But anyway, I guess I'm sort of sliding off topic here......

 

[Renji]

Well I could be open to the possiblity that Mary may not have been raped. However, if there was no physical contact, how was it physically possible for Mary to concieve Jesus in the first place?

I guess I'm having trouble understanding why Christianity especially in this day and age would accept this to be fact.

But anyway, I guess I'm sort of sliding off topic here......

The physical contact that I'm talking here is the sexual intercourse. I think you have misunderstood my post. Well, Christianity would really not accept that God raped Mary because if you trace this story back in the Bible (and thoroughly understand it), it is clear that there is no rape/sex done there.

 

[TxRiverElf]

First of all, I think this is a very valid question. It should not be viewed offensive at all. Either FREE WILL does exist... OR IT DOES NOT...

Personally, I would genuinely like to see the 'documentary proof' or at least the 'biblical reference' that Mary was granted any 'choice' in 'the matter'... I can see things from more than one perspective, so I am further encouraged to ask, was the reference to her remark : "Let it be done to me according to your Word," the sole proof of her PERMISSION to bear the son of God... or was it acknowledged RESIGNATION, that she had no choice?

I have no desire to be offensive. I am genuinely seeking, 'Biblical reference to whether Mary had any choice or not.'

And with that said, I would have to agree with the contention, that if she did NOT have a choice, then she was violated... on some levels and undeniably with respect to her womb being hijacked... to fulfill the prophecy... UNLESS there is HOPEFULLY something that validates that she actually had 'ability and permission' to either accept or reject the advances of God's 'favor' for her.

 

[Skwim]

I would have to agree with the contention, that if she did NOT have a choice, then she was violated... on some levels and undeniably with respect to her womb being hijacked... to fulfill the prophecy... UNLESS there is HOPEFULLY something that validates that she actually had 'ability and permission' to either accept or reject the advances of God's 'favor' for her.

rape

1    [reyp] Show IPA noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
noun 1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.​

As the Bible tells it. it certainly fits the definition. However, it may argued that no actual intercourse took place. The sperm simply appeared--- *poof* --- in Mary's [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif]fallopian tube, and the ensuing biological events took their natural course. I would think that to have the charge of rape stick one would have to amend its definition a mite.[/FONT]

 

[TxRiverElf]

Is there then no reference, to support the possibility, that Mary had a choice? :help:

 

[TxRiverElf]

If there is no indication that Mary had a choice, then the Christian's rendering of God falls short of my mere mortal understanding of Divine... which would grant Free Will...

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well I do not know about whether or not it was consensual, but there is significant evidence to suggest she would be underage by today's standards, which would suggest her capacity to understand (and thus be informed) what was being asked of her was limited; moreover it would also say that God copulated (begotten not made) with a female whom was about to be married which would mean that he was as close as he could get to breaking one of the commandments in terms of coveting another's wife, certainly breaking the spirit of the commandment if not the wording, cuckolding poor Joseph.

 

[McBell]

If there is no indication that Mary had a choice, then the Christian's rendering of God falls short of my mere mortal understanding of Divine... which would grant Free Will...

Seems to me that you should really read the whole thread before you start asking questions that make you look like an idiot.

perhaps if your question was not already answered in this thread long before you resurrected this thread....

 

[HerDotness]

Just one point :

According to Roman Catholics ,Mary was chosen at the point of her own conception ( the immaculate conception) she was born without original sin ( full of Grace)in order to be the vessel that carried Christ.

Exactly. The Immaculate Conception has nothing whatsoever to do with the virgin birth except in this tangential sense.

Non-Catholics commonly think that it means being impregnated by the Holy Spirit when it does not and never has.

 

[TxRiverElf]

However, if there was no physical contact, how was it physically possible for Mary to concieve Jesus in the first place?

Good question, Alice... :sarcastic

Oh course the standard comeback seems to be 'With God all things are possible.'... which I could 'accept' but it is rather odd that if that is the case, then why include a mortal woman in the formula at all?

And that standard comeback points out the prophecy of a Messiah of a certain genetic lineage*... and I find that to be 'foretold' and therefore 'preordained' and therefore suggests that Mary had no choice in the matter at all... unless the conception was a crap shoot, where 'the potential' existed for countless women over countless generations and they all exercised the right to say 'no'; Mary was the first one to accept and 'make it so'?

[* Luke 3.23-38 by the way shows the genetic line through Joseph... who is supposedly NOT the father... so what is up with that? ]

But as to your question... indeed, how can a spirit bare and contribute dna?

I could maybe 'accept' a spirit splitting an egg... as 'chair stacking is suggested as a potential physical act manifested by spirits or ghosts' (according to some film makers) who manipulate things in our physical world... turning on lights... opening cupboards and drawers, etc.... however if that is all that was done, then the child would be a replica of the mother... a genetic twin... a daughter, rather than a son... as no outside dna has been introduced, unlike the standard egg splitting process by mortal sperm, which provides additional dna which makes genetic twining next to impossible, though such a daughter could look almost like the mother, as opposed to exactly like the mother... and of course, mortal sperm egg splitting initiates the ongoing growth process of development, via multiplying and splitting of cells...

So... if God was genetically father (as opposed to Creator father) of Christ... then that would require transference of physical DNA... so lets say the spirit moved God's dna... like moving a chair... from God's dna bank to Mary's egg... that would constitute physical contact... and would indeed be a rape if not consensual... not to fail to mention that it suggests that God is a physical entity with DNA that is compatible with mortals... which Christians have already been set up to accept, being 'made in God's image' and all... (Though personally I think that was a transcription error and likely had originally been written as 'made in God's Imagination', rather than 'Image'... but that is another story, too reasonable to be accepted by Christians for some reason.)

So if God is Physical, where does he hang out? Is he like Dr. Who? Or is he in a place like Olympus, with the OTHERS who constitute the multiple reference 'Our"? Better yet, why didn't he come down and do the honorable thing and marry the virgin that he impregnated?

I am genuinely trying to understand whether Mary had any choice or not.

So far, all I have been advised of is that remark of Mary's... which could be viewed as consent, but in my opinion could also be viewed as resignation to a directive which she could not escape... after all, this is not Joseph's wing man speaking on his behalf, this is the Holy Ghost/Spirit speaking on behalf of God... who can smite the entire populations of all living things, if adequately ticked off.... rebuked... denied... etc.

So, the question for me is where is it written that the 'conception of Christ' was a genuine 'proposal pending permission' instead of an advisement of what was to be.. the latter being that 'no' was not an option?

 

[TxRiverElf]

Seems to me that you should really read the whole thread before you start asking questions that make you look like an idiot.

perhaps if your question was not already answered in this thread long before you resurrected this thread....

My, my aren't you the helpful sort. Are you anti-resurrection? Or are you merely an antagonistic idiot-sensor who likes to attempt to intimidate. in order to invoke censure?

Perhaps I am an idiot, because I do not see where my question has been answered...

 

[TxRiverElf]

Exactly. The Immaculate Conception has nothing whatsoever to do with the virgin birth except in this tangential sense.

Non-Catholics commonly think that it means being impregnated by the Holy Spirit when it does not and never has.

I am neither Catholic nor Christian, though curious. I am ignorant, but not an idiot, despite being advised on my first day of posting, that I appear to be one. I truly appreciate different views. I try to embrace empathy and understanding, even if I can not embrace agreement.

To that end, if you do not mind, could you please advise me whose conception is referenced in the phrase "The Immaculate Conception" and why is it considered "immaculate"?

If that phrase does not refer to the 'impregnation by the Holy Spirit,' at the risk of looking like an idiot, could you please tell me if there is another phrase, that refers to that impregnation by the Holy Spirit?

 

[TxRiverElf]

Nor rape.

With all due respect, speaking strictly on a physical level, sadly and no less horribly but sometimes more horribly, a body can be sexually raped without 'use' of penis, testicles, or sperm. Such acts can and have been 'performed' upon both genders and have been rendered by both genders. It is no less 'forceful' and no less of a 'violation' than the act which includes the particulars mentioned and horrifically can incur severe physical damage and even fatality.

 

[McBell]

My, my aren't you the helpful sort. Are you anti-resurrection? Or are you merely an antagonistic idiot-sensor who likes to attempt to intimidate. in order to invoke censure?

Perhaps I am an idiot, because I do not see where my question has been answered...

your transference is duly noted.

 

[TxRiverElf]

Perhaps you meant my 're-transference' wherein it was you who displayed a compunction to bully as "redirection of feelings and desires and especially of those unconsciously retained from childhood toward a new object (as a psychoanalyst conducting therapy)" in quoting me : " If there is no indication that Mary had a choice, then the Christian's rendering of God falls short of my mere mortal understanding of Divine... which would grant Free Will.." Followed by your own remark : "Seems to me that you should really read the whole thread before you start asking questions that make you look like an idiot."

 

[McBell]

Perhaps you meant my 're-transference' wherein it was you who displayed a compunction to bully as "redirection of feelings and desires and especially of those unconsciously retained from childhood toward a new object (as a psychoanalyst conducting therapy)" in quoting me : " If there is no indication that Mary had a choice, then the Christian's rendering of God falls short of my mere mortal understanding of Divine... which would grant Free Will.." Followed by your own remark : "Seems to me that you should really read the whole thread before you start asking questions that make you look like an idiot."

Yes, you know, because posts #35, #44, #76, #83 in this very thread do not exist...

 

[TxRiverElf]

And how is mythology any different? Obviously the concept originated somewhere and has a basis in emotion.

Besides, I still say we need not be logical, especially when it comes to dealing with existential issues which are personal and emotional. Why always be logical? Myths are there to provide us with this stuff.

I agree with you Guitar's Cry :clap and I am actually a person who equally appreciates sound logic.

It is totally illogical to discount the values and powers of imagination and emotion.

All religions are founded upon someone's imagination and someone else's willingness, or manipulated fear of emotion, to accept that imaginative explanation for the hitherfore unexplained... and not only are they to willingly accept it as gospel, but do so on faith that they are not being lied to... void of any sound evidence what so ever.... aside from the manufacturers' own testimonial, so they too are imaginatively 'devote'. :slap:

Humans being what we are, this is an oxymoron of logical illogic... and totally reflects imagination... now, whether it is actually Divine, is entirely another vein of consideration... :sarcastic