Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yalla · 08-17-2005, 03:19 AM

I do not consider this a trivial topic at all.
Sequence is important.
"Luke"1.31 Angel to Mary "... you WILL conceive in your womb....."
Fait accompli. No consent asked or given.
That's premeditated rape coming up.?
Next in sequence, Mary ..How come?
Angel responds [ more on this later].
THEN Mary says, "Luke" 1.38, " Behold I am the handmaid of the lord [ anyone here read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaiden's Tale" ?], let it be according to your word".
We have a slight power imbalance here. But consent is ,sort of, given after the statement it WILL happen.
Rape? Maybe, maybe not. But awfully close.

Back to the angel's response.
"Luke" 1.35 ''..the power of the Most High will overshadow you..".
Notice: "Most High" -the power imbalance. BEFORE consent given.
I have read somewhere [can't be more precise I'm sorry but if I'm wrong feel free to correct me] that this was an euphemism in the Tanakh for "forceful and violent intercourse".
If so, the thin line between rape and not rape just went out the window.

Now I know that this is a fictional event but there are 2 important factors here.
One: it is revealing of the attitude of the author towards the rights of people ,particularly young women, when faced with the wishes and power of the most high. Obey with a smile.

Two: this stupendously wonderful divine event highly praised by Christians for millenia is so close to rape the distinction is lost on me.

Thomas II · 08-17-2005, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

As I was tracking down "Maria" vs "Mariam" in various Greek New Testament editions, I noted that Jesus Christ's mother was not asked if she wanted to have Jesus Christ. This would mean that she was reproductively raped even if not sexually raped. But we are told that she never protested that (Luke 1, Matthew 1). :huh:

Mary was not raped at all. Mary was married to Antipater,son of Herod the Great,King of Judea,from his first marriage.
On 4 BC Herod found that Antipater had instigated family intrigues so he executed him. Mary had to run for her life and the life of her baby. She was hidden with Joseph...Later Herod would try to kill the heir to his throne by killing "the innocents"...
Jesus was then the rightful heir to the throne of Judea...
He really was the King of the Jews...as Pilate recognized.

lpetrich · 08-17-2005, 08:35 AM

Thomas II, how did you find that out? What primary sources state what you claim?

And I find you other people's comments most enlightening. Toto is probably correct that such unconsented pregnancy was likely par for the course in many previous societies; I was thinking from a viewpoint of choosing what children one has.

iLoveKnowledge · 08-17-2005, 08:50 AM

From a 21st-century perspective, it does sound almost like rape. But when Mary says "Fine, do what you gotta do," i'd say it's more along the line of her realizing that she had no say in the matter. OTOH, maybe she was afraid that if she said "No, find someone else," God would turn her into a little pile of ashes, or maybe curse her to be barren or something else.

Whatever the reason for her saying yes, it's dancing on the line between "rape" and "forced to conceive." I guess whichever it is depends one your own perspective. There isn't a word to name this with, AFAIK, so i can't say i would go for either one.

Nero's Boot · 08-17-2005, 11:11 AM

The God of the Old Testament did not care one iota of free will or consent; if he wanted to knock up a woman, he certainly wouldn't ask her concerning it.

--I say it again: The God of the Old Testament is much like the Unbeheld of Imajica NB

Toto · 08-17-2005, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iLoveKnowledge

From a 21st-century perspective, it does sound almost like rape. But when Mary says "Fine, do what you gotta do," i'd say it's more along the line of her realizing that she had no say in the matter. OTOH, maybe she was afraid that if she said "No, find someone else," God would turn her into a little pile of ashes, or maybe curse her to be barren or something else.

Whatever the reason for her saying yes, it's dancing on the line between "rape" and "forced to conceive." I guess whichever it is depends one your own perspective. There isn't a word to name this with, AFAIK, so i can't say i would go for either one.

From the perspective of Andrea Dworkin or some other man-hating modern anti-sex crusader, it might be close to rape. From the perspective of anyone else, it's not even close.

From the perspective of the people who wrote the NT, pregnancy was a normal state for women and a blessing, and nobody thought that they had much in the way of personal autonomy. If you thought that your deity called you to be a leader, a soldier, a priest, or the mother of his kid, or the mother of 20 kids who would die in battle, or someone who died on the cross for him, that was your function in life, and your only response was "God's will be done."

And the whole thing didn't happen, remember?

doubtingt · 08-17-2005, 11:37 AM

It is clearly not consent, since the authoritarian declaration was made to Mary of will happen with zero reference or dependence upon her subsequent response. Note that even Mary's inconsequential response is not one of her own will to be impregnated, but merely a succumbing to whatever the authoritarian will of God has already decreed.

In contrast to patchy's dismissal, this issue is a very relevant demonstration of the fundamental authoritarianism and lack of respect for liberty and human dignity that pervades both the OT and NT and is central to the character of the Biblical God.
The fact that these attitudes pervaded the culture out of which the Bible emerged does not negate this issues importance, but just the opposite.
For one, it highlights the clear lack of divine revelation and timelessness of the ideas and ethics, and speaks clearly to the fact that the Bible's ideas and ethics (whether taken literally or metaphorically) is a product of human minds within a culture whose ideas and ethics are wholly inappropriate for a society claiming to value human liberty and dignity.

Real moral and political progress is only possible to the extent that the Bible is not only seen for the culturally bound work of human fiction it is, but that even much of its non-literal deeper moral/political message is in conflict with the enlightenment values that have moved human rights and liberty forward in the past 200 years.

Toto · 08-17-2005, 11:50 AM

I think we can agree on the "clear lack of divine revelation and timelessness of the ideas and ethics" of the Bible.

But it still doesn't help the discussion when an inflammatory word like "rape" is thrown around so casually.

doubtingt · 08-17-2005, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think we can agree on the "clear lack of divine revelation and timelessness of the ideas and ethics" of the Bible.

But it still doesn't help the discussion when an inflammatory word like "rape" is thrown around so casually.

Agreed, but the present situation is quite on par with many situations already commonly referred to as rape. Also, for many, the moral issues surrounding rape is not about sex, but the non-consensual violation of anothers body. When you put the sexual hang-ups and shame aside, the non-consensual impregnation of a women who has no realistic option but submission entails pretty much the same moral issues as rape.
All that said, "rape" may be a counter-productive way to put it, but not neccessarily b/c it is extreme distortive hyperbole.

yalla · 08-17-2005, 08:32 PM

Toto: "From the perspective of Andrea Dworkin or some other man-hating modern anti-sex crusader, it might be close to rape. From the perspective of anyone else, it's not even close."

yalla: "is so close to rape the distinction is lost on me."

Apparently I am a "man-hating modern anti-sex crusader".

"inflammatory"?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-17-2005, 03:19 AM	#11
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	I do not consider this a trivial topic at all. Sequence is important. "Luke"1.31 Angel to Mary "... you WILL conceive in your womb....." Fait accompli. No consent asked or given. That's premeditated rape coming up.? Next in sequence, Mary ..How come? Angel responds [ more on this later]. THEN Mary says, "Luke" 1.38, " Behold I am the handmaid of the lord [ anyone here read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaiden's Tale" ?], let it be according to your word". We have a slight power imbalance here. But consent is ,sort of, given after the statement it WILL happen. Rape? Maybe, maybe not. But awfully close. Back to the angel's response. "Luke" 1.35 ''..the power of the Most High will overshadow you..". Notice: "Most High" -the power imbalance. BEFORE consent given. I have read somewhere [can't be more precise I'm sorry but if I'm wrong feel free to correct me] that this was an euphemism in the Tanakh for "forceful and violent intercourse". If so, the thin line between rape and not rape just went out the window. Now I know that this is a fictional event but there are 2 important factors here. One: it is revealing of the attitude of the author towards the rights of people ,particularly young women, when faced with the wishes and power of the most high. Obey with a smile. Two: this stupendously wonderful divine event highly praised by Christians for millenia is so close to rape the distinction is lost on me.

08-17-2005, 08:35 AM	#13
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Thomas II, how did you find that out? What primary sources state what you claim? And I find you other people's comments most enlightening. Toto is probably correct that such unconsented pregnancy was likely par for the course in many previous societies; I was thinking from a viewpoint of choosing what children one has.

08-17-2005, 08:50 AM	#14
iLoveKnowledge Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Addicted to Nox Arcana and Amethystium Posts: 2,675	From a 21st-century perspective, it does sound almost like rape. But when Mary says "Fine, do what you gotta do," i'd say it's more along the line of her realizing that she had no say in the matter. OTOH, maybe she was afraid that if she said "No, find someone else," God would turn her into a little pile of ashes, or maybe curse her to be barren or something else. Whatever the reason for her saying yes, it's dancing on the line between "rape" and "forced to conceive." I guess whichever it is depends one your own perspective. There isn't a word to name this with, AFAIK, so i can't say i would go for either one.

08-17-2005, 11:11 AM	#15
Nero's Boot Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: West Virginia Posts: 1,234	The God of the Old Testament did not care one iota of free will or consent; if he wanted to knock up a woman, he certainly wouldn't ask her concerning it. --I say it again: The God of the Old Testament is much like the Unbeheld of Imajica NB

08-17-2005, 11:37 AM	#17
doubtingt Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: USA Posts: 4,635	It is clearly not consent, since the authoritarian declaration was made to Mary of will happen with zero reference or dependence upon her subsequent response. Note that even Mary's inconsequential response is not one of her own will to be impregnated, but merely a succumbing to whatever the authoritarian will of God has already decreed. In contrast to patchy's dismissal, this issue is a very relevant demonstration of the fundamental authoritarianism and lack of respect for liberty and human dignity that pervades both the OT and NT and is central to the character of the Biblical God. The fact that these attitudes pervaded the culture out of which the Bible emerged does not negate this issues importance, but just the opposite. For one, it highlights the clear lack of divine revelation and timelessness of the ideas and ethics, and speaks clearly to the fact that the Bible's ideas and ethics (whether taken literally or metaphorically) is a product of human minds within a culture whose ideas and ethics are wholly inappropriate for a society claiming to value human liberty and dignity. Real moral and political progress is only possible to the extent that the Bible is not only seen for the culturally bound work of human fiction it is, but that even much of its non-literal deeper moral/political message is in conflict with the enlightenment values that have moved human rights and liberty forward in the past 200 years.

08-17-2005, 11:50 AM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think we can agree on the "clear lack of divine revelation and timelessness of the ideas and ethics" of the Bible. But it still doesn't help the discussion when an inflammatory word like "rape" is thrown around so casually.

08-17-2005, 08:32 PM	#20
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Toto: "From the perspective of Andrea Dworkin or some other man-hating modern anti-sex crusader, it might be close to rape. From the perspective of anyone else, it's not even close." yalla: "is so close to rape the distinction is lost on me." Apparently I am a "man-hating modern anti-sex crusader". "inflammatory"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.