Did God rape Mary?

[sojourner]

However if the definition is flawed then that should be pointed out. Should the OP instead have asked 'Did God sexually abuse or exploit Mary?'

Yes. That would be a better question, but also not without legal problems, for sexual abuse also carries a legal definition. Since no sexual contact was made, my guess is, no. God did not sexually abuse Mary. Did God exploit Mary? I suppose it could legally be argued, but not theologically argued. Which argument are you advocating for?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since it's God, it can't be rape by definition.

What definition?

Sorry, but I equate mortal questions such as this to be on the same order of asking if God was personally responsible for all 250,000+ deaths from the 2004 Tsunami. Neither becomes applicable given the traits and characteristics attributed to the Abrahamic God.

If I stood by and watched someone die despite being able to save them at no personal risk, I would consider myself responsible for the person's death. Why can't we say the same thing about God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. That would be a better question, but also not without legal problems, for sexual abuse also carries a legal definition. Since no sexual contact was made, my guess is, no. God did not sexually abuse Mary. Did God exploit Mary? I suppose it could legally be argued, but not theologically argued. Which argument are you advocating for?

What does "begotten, not made" mean if it doesn't refer to sexual contact?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nonetheless, "rape" is a legal term, not a moral term. What it "is" and what you think it "ought" to be are two different things. The question was, "Did God rape Mary?" The painfully simple answer is: NO!

It's not exclusively a legal term. I hope you're not suggesting that forced sex isn't rape unless it's considered a crime where it happened.

For instance, in many places for a long time (and to this day in some), forced sex between spouses wasn't considered rape under the law. I'd still call it rape by a reasonable definition of the term, though.

 

[sojourner]

What does "begotten, not made" mean if it doesn't refer to sexual contact?

Read John 1 and Philippians 2.

 

[sojourner]

It's not exclusively a legal term. I hope you're not suggesting that forced sex isn't rape unless it's considered a crime where it happened.

For instance, in many places for a long time (and to this day in some), forced sex between spouses wasn't considered rape under the law. I'd still call it rape by a reasonable definition of the term, though.

Any reasonably good lawyer would disagree with you. "Rape" is a legal term. It has legal definitions. Until the definition of rape is expanded to include "non-physical contact with a Deity," I'm not interested.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Read John 1 and Philippians 2.

Neither of those answer my question.

Any reasonably good lawyer would disagree with you. "Rape" is a legal term. It has legal definitions.

I just grabbed a random piece of legislation. It gives legal definitions for terms like "adverse effect", "contaminant", and "natural environment". Do these terms not have meanings outside a legal context?

Edit: under current Canadian law, "rape" is not defined. Instead, our criminal code has various degrees of sexual assault determined by things like harm, not by things like whether penetration occurred. Does this mean that there is no such thing as rape in Canada? I would say not.

Until the definition of rape is expanded to include "non-physical contact with a Deity," I'm not interested.

If a form of contact has physical effects - e.g. a real pregnancy - I wouldn't call it "non-physical".

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Certainly a less flammatory question which still begs the question of whether a sexless, ultimate creator can be held responsible for the results of its creation. I think not.

Im not asking about the outcomes of creation but rather the direct outcomes of its own intervention.

That said, back on topic, how can a God which gave humans free will and is all merciful either go back on his word by taking away that free will? My belief is God would not do that, so either Mary consented or the story is flawed in some manner. For example, Mary may have already been impregnated by her husband but the soul of the fetus was directed by God. Not a major misunderstanding by those doing the writing at the time, but it would answer some of the questions.

So you contend a third option then? that a literal interpretation is incorrect... well if we are to discount the story to begin with then I suppose we can have a whole bunch of different options, none of which match what is in the bible - but many of which are certainly nicer.... for example maybe god created a child out of thin air and gave it to mary (who was a virgin). However if you take the story as being true, there are ONLY the two options i gave in my earlier post.

Yes. That would be a better question, but also not without legal problems, for sexual abuse also carries a legal definition. Since no sexual contact was made, my guess is, no. God did not sexually abuse Mary. Did God exploit Mary? I suppose it could legally be argued, but not theologically argued. Which argument are you advocating for?

Sexual exploitation in knowingly taking advantage of an individual with limited awareness of what was being proposed and limited capacity to abstain from taking part on account of explicit or implied repercussions as well as undue influence arising from a god-creation relationship (in much the same way as might occur between a teacher-student for example); the purposes of which is to obtain advantage (the birth of his son into the human realm) at the expense of mary (and to a lesser extent joseph). That would be the basis for my legal position; but on the theological position I would be highly critical of your belief it cannot be argued; my argument would be that the act of creation does not convey dominion over any intelligent entity (even if part of creation), particularly if you have supposedly given them free will.

 

[garrydons]

I am wondering why this very offensive post is still here. God for Jews and Christians is a Supreme Being and deserves utmost respect. Is this particular post not violating the forum Rules?

 

[Road Warrior]

So you contend a third option then? that a literal interpretation is incorrect... well if we are to discount the story to begin with then I suppose we can have a whole bunch of different options, none of which match what is in the bible - but many of which are certainly nicer.... for example maybe god created a child out of thin air and gave it to mary (who was a virgin). However if you take the story as being true, there are ONLY the two options i gave in my earlier post.

Agreed there are multiple options, disagreed on your attempt to narrow them down to your own particular choices.

 

[McBell]

I am wondering why this very offensive post is still here. God for Jews and Christians is a Supreme Being and deserves utmost respect. Is this particular post not violating the forum Rules?

What post are you talking about and which rule(s) do you think it breaks?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Agreed there are multiple options, disagreed on your attempt to narrow them down to your own particular choices.

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

Those are the three options, you identified the third, if the third is not right then one of the first two are the case.

What post are you talking about and which rule(s) do you think it breaks?

I think he is referring to the entire thread

 

[Skwim]

Any reasonably good lawyer would disagree with you. "Rape" is a legal term. It has legal definitions. Until the definition of rape is expanded to include "non-physical contact with a Deity," I'm not interested.

Any reasonably good lawyer would disagree with you. Just because some agency assigns a legal definition to a word doesn't strip it of any previous or future meanings. So while "rape" is legally defined, it is also culturally defined, sociologically defined. and religiously defined.

 

[garrydons]

To: Mestemia

Of course I am referring to this particular thread entitled: "Did God rape Mary?" This is very, very, very offensive to Christians and Messianics.

 

[garrydons]

This violates No. 3 of the Forum Rules. sub-numbered 1.

 

[sojourner]

If a form of contact has physical effects - e.g. a real pregnancy - I wouldn't call it "non-physical".

That would include (by the biblical story -- which is the only thing we have to go on) breathing, too. Is breathing harmful? Is pregnancy a bad thing? Pregnancy is only a bad thing as it impacts one negatively. The pregnancy, by all accounts, didn't impact Mary negatively.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That would include (by the biblical story -- which is the only thing we have to go on) breathing, too. Is breathing harmful? Is pregnancy a bad thing? Pregnancy is only a bad thing as it impacts one negatively. The pregnancy, by all accounts, didn't impact Mary negatively.

Whoa... wait one minute. There are only two criteria to determine whether rape occurred:

- did the sexual act occur?
- did the potential victim consent to the act?

That's it. Rape that the victim decides after the fact wasn't so bad is still rape.

I think it's clear from the Gospels that Mary's consent wasn't obtained before the act, since she was surprised to hear that she might be pregnant. So the only question is whether the act was sexual.

In a purely biological viewpoint, it seems it was: if Mary really is "the Mother of God" as she's portrayed, then this implies some sort of merging of gametes resulting in a pregnancy... i.e. *sexual* reproduction. However, I recognize that the strict "biology textbook" answer might not be appropriate here.

So this leads me back to what I asked before: Jesus is described as "begotten, not made." In this context, does "begotten" describe the sexual act or not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To: Mestemia

Of course I am referring to this particular thread entitled: "Did God rape Mary?" This is very, very, very offensive to Christians and Messianics.

Why?

If the answer is obviously "no", then hopefully you can explain why it is.

 

[sojourner]

Any reasonably good lawyer would disagree with you. Just because some agency assigns a legal definition to a word doesn't strip it of any previous or future meanings. So while "rape" is legally defined, it is also culturally defined, sociologically defined. and religiously defined.

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

 

[sojourner]

Whoa... wait one minute. There are only two criteria to determine whether rape occurred:

- did the sexual act occur?
- did the potential victim consent to the act?

That's it. Rape that the victim decides after the fact wasn't so bad is still rape.

I think it's clear from the Gospels that Mary's consent wasn't obtained before the act, since she was surprised to hear that she might be pregnant. So the only question is whether the act was sexual.

In a purely biological viewpoint, it seems it was: if Mary really is "the Mother of God" as she's portrayed, then this implies some sort of merging of gametes resulting in a pregnancy... i.e. *sexual* reproduction. However, I recognize that the strict "biology textbook" answer might not be appropriate here.

So this leads me back to what I asked before: Jesus is described as "begotten, not made." In this context, does "begotten" describe the sexual act or not?

Mk. How can a sexual act occur between a human being and an incoporeal God? Answer: It can't. Which is why the Incarnation is a Mystery -- not a "rape."
Additionally, Mary is reported to have consented when she said, "Let it be to me as you have said."

"Begotten" does not describe a sexual act. It does describe God as being born of a human mother.