GOD RAPED MARY

[Aroura]

Actually, in Luke, when the angel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a child by the Holy Spirit (not that she already had), Mary's reply was, 'I am the Lord's servant.  May your word to me be fulfilled.'

Hard to make the case for rape when consent is pretty clear.

Boru

---

The story goes? Who wrote this story and where can I find it?

No one knows who wrote it, but you can find it in either the first or second chapter of Luke.

Boru

IDK, it wasn't like he was asking permission.  He was just saying what would happen. And as there was a sort of slave/master relationship between God and humans, meaning disobeying God just isn't something you can do, did she really have a choice?  Or was she just informed of what was going to happen, and then accepted it like an obedient little slave girl.

I'm not saying it's out and out rape, but I am saying this isn't what anyone nowadays would call clear consent, either. If a very overbearing father tells his 12 year old daughter that he's going to impregnate her, she might have the same response.  Would we call it consent, then?

---

This is all nonsense. Jesus was a haploid. At best a parthenogen (but then the incorrect sex). 

Unless theists are willing to concede that god has DNA.

Or, it's all a fantasy.

Maybe Jesus is made of midichlorians.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm not saying it's out and out rape, but I am saying this isn't what anyone nowadays would call clear consent, either. If a very overbearing father tells his 12 year old daughter that he's going to impregnate her, she might have the same response.  Would we call it consent, then?

The glaring difference is that a modern 12 year old isn't able to give consent.  Mary, on the other hand, was already engaged to Joseph when the angel appeared, so she was clearly old enough (at the time) to give consent.

According to the account in Luke, Mary didn't resist, she didn't seem afraid at the news - she merely asked how a virgin could be made pregnant.  And, as a soon to be bride, it seems silly to presume that getting knocked up and giving birth held any special terrors for her.

Sorry, but you'll really have to go all round the houses for the story to depict a rape, statutory or otherwise.

Boru

[Aoi Magi]

I'm not saying it's out and out rape, but I am saying this isn't what anyone nowadays would call clear consent, either. If a very overbearing father tells his 12 year old daughter that he's going to impregnate her, she might have the same response.  Would we call it consent, then?

The glaring difference is that a modern 12 year old isn't able to give consent.  Mary, on the other hand, was already engaged to Joseph when the angel appeared, so she was clearly old enough (at the time) to give consent.

According to the account in Luke, Mary didn't resist, she didn't seem afraid at the news - she merely asked how a virgin could be made pregnant.  And, as a soon to be bride, it seems silly to presume that getting knocked up and giving birth held any special terrors for her.

Sorry, but you'll really have to go all round the houses for the story to depict a rape, statutory or otherwise.

Boru

In those days consent was given by the bride's parents, more specifically her father, not the bride herself. Also I find it funny when people excuse a god, who is supposedly the timeless source of objective morality, on account of his deed being from a different time period. Even if people died young those days, that doesn't mean children were born adults.

As for the biblical story itself, If a father testifies in court that he sent his servant to his preteen daughter to notify her that he will impregnate her, and that his servant had returned to him with his daughter's consent... I think even in Texas, a judge would put that father in the slammer,.... on second thought... maybe not in texas but in any other civillized region of the world...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The glaring difference is that a modern 12 year old isn't able to give consent.  Mary, on the other hand, was already engaged to Joseph when the angel appeared, so she was clearly old enough (at the time) to give consent.

According to the account in Luke, Mary didn't resist, she didn't seem afraid at the news - she merely asked how a virgin could be made pregnant.  And, as a soon to be bride, it seems silly to presume that getting knocked up and giving birth held any special terrors for her.

Sorry, but you'll really have to go all round the houses for the story to depict a rape, statutory or otherwise.

Boru

In those days consent was given by the bride's parents, more specifically her father, not the bride herself. Also I find it funny when people excuse a god, who is supposedly the timeless source of objective morality, on account of his deed being from a different time period. Even if people died young those days, that doesn't mean children were born adults.

As for the biblical story itself, If a father testifies in court that he sent his servant to his preteen daughter to notify her that he will impregnate her, and that his servant had returned to him with his daughter's consent... I think even in Texas, a judge would put that father in the slammer,.... on second thought... maybe not in texas but in any other civillized region of the world...

1.  But Mary's parents do not appear in the story.

2.  I'm not trying to 'excuse a god' at all.  This is simply an analysis of the text, and cultural context is important as regards the story.  If Mary was a preteen, that was the norm in 1st century Palestine - you simply cannot judge the mores and behaviour of the people in the story based on the mores and behaviour of people today.

3.  I agree that a modern judge would have locked up the father in your example, but so what?  A Sanhedrin would not have done so, and that's all that matters.

Please don't think I'm trying to excuse the Bible in any shape or form - I'm not.  But the story in Luke simply doesn't describe any kind of a 'rape'.

Boru

[GrandizerII]

Actually, in Luke, when the angel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a child by the Holy Spirit (not that she already had), Mary's reply was, 'I am the Lord's servant.  May your word to me be fulfilled.'

Hard to make the case for rape when consent is pretty clear.

Boru

---

No one knows who wrote it, but you can find it in either the first or second chapter of Luke.

Boru

IDK, it wasn't like he was asking permission.  He was just saying what would happen. And as there was a sort of slave/master relationship between God and humans, meaning disobeying God just isn't something you can do, did she really have a choice?  Or was she just informed of what was going to happen, and then accepted it like an obedient little slave girl.

I'm not saying it's out and out rape, but I am saying this isn't what anyone nowadays would call clear consent, either. If a very overbearing father tells his 12 year old daughter that he's going to impregnate her, she might have the same response.  Would we call it consent, then?

---

This is all nonsense. Jesus was a haploid. At best a parthenogen (but then the incorrect sex). 

Unless theists are willing to concede that god has DNA.

Or, it's all a fantasy.

Maybe Jesus is made of midichlorians.

Agreed. I wouldn't call this rape, but Mary's response definitely wasn't consent, but rather submission. She had no other option but to reject and therefore be "demonized" just like Zechariah, John the Baptist's father. It's not like she could've just said no to God.

[Aoi Magi]

1.  But Mary's parents do not appear in the story.

2.  I'm not trying to 'excuse a god' at all.  This is simply an analysis of the text, and cultural context is important as regards the story.  If Mary was a preteen, that was the norm in 1st century Palestine - you simply cannot judge the mores and behaviour of the people in the story based on the mores and behaviour of people today.

3.  I agree that a modern judge would have locked up the father in your example, but so what?  A Sanhedrin would not have done so, and that's all that matters.

Please don't think I'm trying to excuse the Bible in any shape or form - I'm not.  But the story in Luke simply doesn't describe any kind of a 'rape'.

Boru

1. That is a problem in my view, because I'd like to know who were the a**holes who thought marrying off a 12 year old child to a 90 year old man was a good idea.

2. No I am not saying you are trying to excuse, and in fact it might work if it's seen just as a story from a different time period. But the problem arises for those who claim god is timeless and is the source of objective morality. If the creator's wisdom and morality varies with time and culture, how the heck is it objective?

3. No it matters, because it shows that what he did, even though might not seem wrong for people in that time period, but is wrong in a civilized society, and that "He" lacks the wisdom and/or foresight to know it.

[brewer]

If any of this were actually factual I think Mary would probably jump at the chance. I mean camon, what impoverished kid wouldn't. Be the mother of a god king, immortalized from then on. What kid wouldn't want that. She was going to end up knocked up anyway. Talk about street cred.

[Aroura]

I'm not saying it's out and out rape, but I am saying this isn't what anyone nowadays would call clear consent, either. If a very overbearing father tells his 12 year old daughter that he's going to impregnate her, she might have the same response.  Would we call it consent, then?

The glaring difference is that a modern 12 year old isn't able to give consent.  Mary, on the other hand, was already engaged to Joseph when the angel appeared, so she was clearly old enough (at the time) to give consent.

According to the account in Luke, Mary didn't resist, she didn't seem afraid at the news - she merely asked how a virgin could be made pregnant.  And, as a soon to be bride, it seems silly to presume that getting knocked up and giving birth held any special terrors for her.

Sorry, but you'll really have to go all round the houses for the story to depict a rape, statutory or otherwise.

Boru

Well, I'm not even talking about her age though, more like her station compared to God's station.  She could be 35 and it isn't really consent when God simply tells you it's gonna happen.
Also, Mary is described as afraid and troubled, until the angel tells her not to be.  And poof.  Suddenly she's not.

Again, I'm not really arguing it's fully rape, just that I'm not sure anyone can give consent when the very God of the universe simply announces that something should be so (again, it isn't as though anywhere was she ever asked if she wanted to be the mother, she was just told she would be, and she meekly accepted, not like she had a choice.)

Even rape isn't a black and white thing.  There are grey areas (like when people are under the influence, or drugs or of persuasion).

---

IDK, it wasn't like he was asking permission.  He was just saying what would happen. And as there was a sort of slave/master relationship between God and humans, meaning disobeying God just isn't something you can do, did she really have a choice?  Or was she just informed of what was going to happen, and then accepted it like an obedient little slave girl.

I'm not saying it's out and out rape, but I am saying this isn't what anyone nowadays would call clear consent, either. If a very overbearing father tells his 12 year old daughter that he's going to impregnate her, she might have the same response.  Would we call it consent, then?

---

Maybe Jesus is made of midichlorians.

Agreed. I wouldn't call this rape, but Mary's response definitely wasn't consent, but rather submission. She had no other option but to reject and therefore be "demonized" just like Zechariah, John the Baptist's father. It's not like she could've just said no to God.

Yes this.  You phrased it much better.  She submitted, which isn't the same as consented.

Also, we have no other way to judge past societies except by our own standards, as we cannot truly understand the context of their own.
When we look back on how some things in the past were acceptable, slavery for instance, we don't say "Well, it was normal back then, so it wasn't really slavery".  Yes, it was still slavery, it is only how socially acceptable it was then and now that has changed.

We can and should judge how moral all the stories were.  That's how we get better morals in the long run, by deciding things that happened in the past are no longer acceptable, and should not be repeated in the future.

[Aoi Magi]

I mean camon, what impoverished kid wouldn't. Be the mother of a god king, immortalized from then on.

A smart impoverished kid wouldn't. It's not like getting knocked up by God suddenly makes her wealthy or raises her status in society, besides having to watch the death of your own son is never a good proposal for any would-be mother, more so if that moment of torture is to be enshrined for all eternity. And to top it off, she will then have to sing praises of her son/impregnator for all eternity. Yeh, I don't see a single good thing coming out of this for Mary.

[Bow Before Zeus]

was in fact a non-consential impregnation of a woman

Incorrect. Consent was given:

Luke 1
38 Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.”

I don't see consent here. All I see is submission.