reniaa

by law in those days child in wedlock any wedlock, wasn't a bastard, only in wales could a father denounce a child born in wedlock as a bastard.

reniaa

I don't think we have much choice as the op is stating God raped mary, if god doesn't exist or bible is fiction then the discussion ends there! and can't go further. We have to take the point from assumption that god and bible story is true enough for percieved rape from op point of view becomes a viable discussion.

JEST2ASK

:wave: Hi sorry to jump in but I have some questions ....

Where in Mark or John do we find mention of the nativity, or the earthly lineage of Jesus ... :huh:

Only in Matthew do we see the claim that an angel spoke to Joseph, and only in Luke is the claim made regarding the appearance of an angel to Mary
and they differ considerably on many other details. Are we justified in upholding one or both of the accounts as crediable and accurate?

And just what sort of support did this god fellow give Mary & Joseph? Maybe I am reading into this my own cynical nature but something does not quite seem on the up and up:devil1:

stuart shepherd

You appear to be an expert on bastards.
I would expect that the only LEGITIMATE way to have a child is by a married husband and wife. A child born of any other union would be illegitimate, a bastard.

Stuart Shepherd

JEST2ASK

I did not quite read it that way ...
I guess they do pretty strongly imply that is their take on Luke's story but this seems much more complicated than at 1st glance/

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Good points.

I have in mind how we treat Noah's ark. We point out numerous scientific problems with the story. For example, the 450 foot wood boat was bigger than any wooden boat that has ever floated. The world's current largest wooden boat is The Kuwaiti ship Al-Hashemi-II 274.6 feet. However, it is a restaurant and museum and apparently doesn't sail. The largest wooden boat that floats is the SV Tenacious, 213.25 feet long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...t_wooden_ships)

Even at that size, bigger than any ship ever built, it would have had problems containing the 9,000,000 species that we now identify. We might consider the millions of tons of food that Noah would have needed to gather to feed the animals for a year, not to mention the problems of the tens of thousands of pounds of waste product that would have been produced every day during the year-long voyage. It would also have taken far more than the reported two weeks to load all these species on-board, since there was only one door and one window in the ark. An average of 30 species per second would have had to enter the boat.

Now, in the same way, we should apply what we know of science to the virgin birth tale. We know of many virgins giving birth to sons of gods in mythology, but always through a sexual process. Here the text rejects the idea of a sexual process. Therefore, since egg fertilization with male DNA is excluded, the only way to think of it happening is through some type of cloning process... But this leads to the conclusion that Jesus was a woman.

A believer may escape the dilemma by bringing forth a deux ex machina and solemnly pronounce that God can do anything. Thus, he can postulate that God could have given Noah the ability to move and work thousands of times faster than ordinary human beings, running marathons in less than one second, for example. In the same way, a believer may postulate a God who can produce a male from a female without egg fertilization. But this step makes the fabulous nature of the story appear even more obvious.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

xrey

Yes, that looks like consent to me as well. Then it comes down to age of consent. She was obviously old enough to get married in that culture, though I doubt she was old enough by today's standards.

The issue of "sex" isn't really relevant. In a modern context, it would be similar to in-vitro fertilization. We would require a woman to give consent (and be old enough to give consent) before undergoing IVF, since it would result in a child for which she would bear responsibility. Plus, pregnancy is one of the most dangerous things a woman can do with her body.

But there is still one other issue: power imbalance. If a god, king, or even a boss requests a subordinate for any favor, the subject may not feel he or she has the option to say no. We cannot know if Mary might have been intimidated into accepting God's proposal without fear of retribution. After all, if God controls every life, rejecting would be a risky proposition. Where are the stories of the other potential mothers of Jesus who turned God down?

So in summary: Was it rape? No. Was it unethical? Yes. Joseph should have filed a complaint on Mary's behalf for God's inappropriate request. If God can do anything, He should have been able to create Jesus out of dust.

stuart shepherd

Dear Xrey,
Let me show you something interesting that I noticed........
The angel has come to Mary, a virgin, who is engaged to be married.
The angel tells Mary that she will give birth to a really great son.
So what is the reaction that you would expect from Mary, a virgin engaged to be married, when told that she will have a really great son, since she will soon wed and begin having children?

Mary's Response to the angel's message........
Doesn't Mary's response seem off topic? It seems very natural to me that an engaged woman would be looking forward to marrying and having a child. If someone (not necessarily an angel, but this is the Bible) says you will soon have a great son, doesn't this seem like a natural normal future event?
But Mary brings up the topic of a virgin birth. The angel never mentioned a virgin birth up to this point.

I think that you can see my point. Mary's question about a virgin birth is a literary device to introduce the virgin birth dogma, and not a real conversation.

This reveals that this whole virgin birth thing is just a fabrication.

Stuart Shepherd

Lógos Sokratikós

I think the OP is bull anyway. Assuming the story true, there was no rape as there was no intercourse, plus she remained a virgin. She just got "artificially inseminated" (so to speak) or a zygote implanted without her permission. It might be unethical (she gave her permission but after the fact, and that makes her a saint, maybe the most important, in her role as theotókos). In the narrative, God practically violated her free will.

xrey

Hi Stuart,
Well of course it's a fabrication. Luke (not that I believe such a person existed) needed to tie Jesus to an Old Testament "prophesy" to appeal to Jews while simultaneously outdoing the Greek pantheon of demigods (who were admitted rapists) and retaining both God and Mary's purity. And don't get me started about how Jesus can be paternally descended from David...

It's like asking if Superman can physically have a child with Louis Lane (see "Mallrats" for a discussion of super-sperm); for entertainment purposes only.

That being said, I think that Mary's response is not so much off topic, as it is just wishing to know more about the mechanics of the situation. She should be a little embarrassed for her religious ignorance of not recognizing an angel right off the bat. Yet it is a credit to Mary's manners that she did not bring up the awkward subject that God should owe her parents 30 sheckels or whatever for knocking her up (according to Jewish law)....