Is Mary having a child by God considered rape?

[doink-chan]

Last night I was thinking about the Xmas story, and I was wondering this: Mary supposedly had a child by God after saying she would agree to having one, and as soon as she said it, some of God's Magic Sperm(TM) must have gotten into her body pretty quickly, because not only was the kid conceived after Mary said she would agree to having a kid, she apparently remained a virgin even though God's Magic Sperm(TM) was in there!

That story is sickening to me, because it makes me think of rape, and only proves to me that God is a big doink. Do you think that Mary's having a kid with "God" is considered rape, or not?

[Makai]

Er? Wouldn't rape mean that Mary would have had to object, or express a desire not to be Holy-Mother-Person? Since she agreed to the 'procedure', I wouldn't classify it as rape. And technically...if she really was still a virgin, how *could* it be rape? "Help! Help! I ambushed and raped by a horde of maruading sperm!" :D

-Makai

[Scrutinizer]

doink-chan,

Makai seems right to me. Rape is only rape if it is unwanted sexual penetration of the mouth, vagina or anus. http://www.plauder-smilies.de/smileysex2.gif

Mary explicitly consented to be impregnated by the Holy Spirit according to Luke 1:38 --

"'I am the Lord's servant,' Mary answered. 'May it be to me as you have said.' Then the angel left her."

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

[Orpheous99]

[quote]Originally posted by Makai:
<strong>Er? Wouldn't rape mean that Mary would have had to object, or express a desire not to be Holy-Mother-Person? Since she agreed to the 'procedure', I wouldn't classify it as rape. And technically...if she really was still a virgin, how *could* it be rape? "Help! Help! I ambushed and raped by a horde of maruading sperm!" :D

-Makai</strong><hr></blockquote>


Even if a minor agrees it is still concidered to be rape. She was suppose to be around 12 or 13 years old.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Furthermore, considering the difference in maturity, intellect and personal charisma between a teenage girl and a 4000-year-old Creator Of The Universe And All That It Contains, any competent lawyer should be able to make a good case for statutory rape.

Was it likely that she would say no to God?

[DarkBronzePlant]

Keep in mind that, although they wouldn't phrase it this way, Christians excuse god's activities by the old "do what I say not what I do" clause. Meaning that god can impose whatever laws he wants to upon humankind, but he himself is exempt from those laws. If god slaughters people, he has not committed murder, because, well, he's god, so it's just not murder. If god wants to boink Mary, then it's not rape, because, well, he's god, so it's just not.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

How can one truly refuse God? God sorta supercedes your wants and desires. Hell, he really can change yer mind for you. Saying no is like telling no to a man with a knife at your throat. Don't mean much. Especially if the man with the knife at your throat is the only one who testifies...

[Makai]

Orpheous99-

I wasn't aware that she was supposedly 12-13 at the time. If this is the case, then according to modern standards, I suppose it would technically be considered rape. Quite correct =)


Jack the Bodiless-

Yes, if we're talking court, a case could be made for a rape charge on those grounds. But I was responding to whether I actually think the event *was* rape or not. While, according to Orpheous' comment, it would have been rape, I wouldn't think that just because it was God that we can necessarily assume it was rape. Since the idea of the God involved in this case generally rests upon such things as the Free Will concept, I don't think we can at the same time claim rape on 'mind control' grounds and claim that it was the traditional Xian God.

-Makai

[Synaesthesia]

Orpheous99,

12 to 13 was a verry common marriage age in many civilizations. It is also the age of consent in many areas, although there are additional statutory limitations regarding age differences. (Since God transcends time alltogether, it hardly seems likely that those laws are applicable to him- he has no date of birth save in his physical incarnation which did not, to the best of my knowledge, have sexual intercourse with Mary, ever virgin.

[Orpheous99]

[quote]Originally posted by Synaesthesia:
<strong>Orpheous99,

12 to 13 was a verry common marriage age in many civilizations. It is also the age of consent in many areas, although there are additional statutory limitations regarding age differences. (Since God transcends time alltogether, it hardly seems likely that those laws are applicable to him- he has no date of birth save in his physical incarnation which did not, to the best of my knowledge, have sexual intercourse with Mary, ever virgin.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Women were also concidered to be nothing more than property as well so it was irrelevant if she wanted to or not. That still didn't make it right.

[phlebas]

[quote]Originally posted by Orpheous99:
<strong>Women were also concidered to be nothing more than property as well so it was irrelevant if she wanted to or not. That still didn't make it right.</strong><hr></blockquote>

True enough, and women certainly get the short straw in the Bible and in many other cultures, past and present.

But as for the question at hand -- God having consentual sex with a woman of marriable age wouldn't legally be rape. Whether it's "right" or not is subjective.

However, the Bible doesn't actually say anything about sex with Mary. If modern doctors can impregnante a woman without having sex with her, surely God can do the same thing :)

I think this topic has moved outside of the realm of this forum (and it wasn't really inside to start with). Off to Misc Religion Discussions.

[Angyson]

Gabriel acted as a messanger from God to Mary and gave her the news.
That was the time for her to object, which she failed to do. If no means no,
she never uttered it. Instead, she went and shared the news with her fiance.
That is implied consent. Thus, no rape.

[Thugpreacha]

Furthermore, considering the difference in maturity, intellect and personal charisma between a teenage girl and a 4000-year-old Creator Of The Universe And All That It Contains, any competent lawyer should be able to make a good case for statutory rape.

Was it likely that she would say no to God?
Humans have already tried and convicted God. That is why we will not let Him govern. We have already lobbied for the right to decide our own fate, both individually and collectively. Mary would never take God to Court, but we all collectively have. We demand that He explain Himself, yet He pleads the fifth.
The Jury is split on whether He should be considered a myth so as to end the trial and move on.

[Jade]

I know Christians are obsessed with the resurrection of long dead things, but why must you torment the peaceful rest of this thread? Next time, rather than summoning a mouldering corpse from the ground to totter and shuffle about, why don't you just start a fresh new thread with the same topic?

[Agnostic Theist]

2 points of consideration, actually they're just a couple of interrogatives. However they are, I feel, worthy of consideration.

Was the legal age of Mary's culture/society 16 or below? In middle aged england a man was perfectly entitled to marry a lass of 13 or 14.

Would any of you consider artificial insemination to be a case of rape, if done without the 'mother's' knowledge but with her (retrospective) consent?

[Avatar]

Reading this thread sparked an idea in me.

In the Middle East today, rape is considered valid grounds for divorce, corporeal punishment, and even death. A wife dares not admit that she was raped for fear of total rejection by her husband.

If this was the case back in Mary's time, imagine this:

Mary is raped by persons unknown.
Mary becomes pregnant, and tells her husband it is an act of God.
The child is exceptionally intelligent and in the course of his life invents a philosiphy that threatens the power of the religious power structure.
The child is executed as an enemy of the state for claiming kingship that he may or may not have claimed.
His followers tell his story for and wide.
Other people repeat his story, adding bits from local mythology and folklore to make the case more compelling.
Many years later, someone bothers to write down the now-nearly unrecognizable story of this child.
The rest becomes history.

Sounds as plausable as any other speculation to me. :rolleyes:

[TheYellowDart]

I'm sure you guys will respod to this with some stupid one liner like "oh, another xian fundy trying to impede on my right to free speech" but this is one of the most offessive threads I have ever seen. I can't beleive you would even bring this up. No Mary was not raped by God, and your sick for even thinking of this, or for that matter writing an entire thread about it. Go ahead, insult my beliefs and act offended that someone would call this bad or evil, I don't care. This had to be said. :mad:

[Xrikcus]

I don't see how it's any more offensive than saying that if you don't worship some imaginary figure you will suffer internal torment because you are evil? Or, for that matter, the concept of original sin. There are much more offensive threads from christians all the time, but it's my problem if I am offended.

Naturists may take offense at being made to wear clothes, other people may take offence at the nudist not wearing clothes. The only people who have a problem in there are those who take offence.

Things are only offensive to those who take offence, so though I wouldn't have responded in that way, you are right in bringing up the issue of free speech.

[vsskye]

Offensive? I fail to see that in this post.
But to answer the original question. It was not really rape becasue she did agree to it. Its not like god just over powered her and made her pregnant against her will.

[Orefa]

this is one of the most offessive threads I have ever seen.Remember where you are: this is a secular discussion group. If you expect reverence for your god from all participants you will be offended on a daily basis.

[TheYellowDart]

Remember where you are: this is a secular discussion group. If you expect reverence for your god from all participants you will be offended on a daily basis.

I realize that, it just seems like this isn't a real issue with anyone it was just brought up for shock value.

[Azathoth]

Well, Yahweh did appropriate the baby incubating machinery of the girl in question, so Adultery may have been committed. Is it still adultery if your husband is cuckholded by the ruler of the universe?

Of course if he had really wanted to,he could have just created Jesus out of nothingness. Then sent an angel down to tell the lucky couple that they were about to become adoptive parents.

Voila, one baby saviour, ready to go.

Instead, he decides to give Mary some slightly more personal attention, and has the Holy Spirit (A part of the whole Yahweh triune being, though we don't know what part. ;)) do...something...to her directly.

Or, if he needed a human host.* He could have created another woman, and had a go at her, instead of chasing after a woman who was already married.

So, rape? I don't know. I guess if 'creating offspring with an undue influence on the female in question', is rape, then it is. If it's strictly defined as just sexual intercourse, then it's not.

Although, I do feel he tapped that awestruck,unduly influenced ass. You might note the transition to the kinder, more mellow god in the New Testiment, from the complete jerk of the Old Testiment. Sexual frustration will do that to a person.

Maybe he just needed to get laid, for once.




*(As a side note, doesn't Yahweh seem to be operating much like a facehugger from Alien? They also use humans as incubators, and they don't really have "sex" either, but they still knock up their victims.)

[Kurt Slade]

I must wonder as to the purpose of this thread with its implication that "god" committed the sexual crime of rape.

However, any entity capable of "creation" would be capable of adding DNA of his choosing to an egg in the fallopian tube of a human IMO.

Think of it as artificial insemination without the use of sperm.

[Vorkosigan]

I realize that, it just seems like this isn't a real issue with anyone it was just brought up for shock value.

Perhaps, although given the widespread rape of maidens in antiquity by gods, the underlying mythological point is valid.

[Ellis14]

Despite the speculation on God, I think GRD would provide better input for this thread topic.

Ellis10
EoG Mod

[DNAinaGoodway]

I've never received a good answer from those infected with christian belief memes on this question. Like the TheYellowDart, they deflect it with claims of repulsion and shock. At best, they claim it is yet another unknowable mystery.

Kurt Slade is right, sperm would not be necessary for an all powerful creator, just 23 chromozones, one of them y.

Azathoth may not be far off either. There would be no need to involve Mary's egg, she could have just been a surrogate mother for an already complete zygote, sort of an ultimate adoptive parent.

An who's to say "God" did the deed anyway, "he" wasn't there was he? What's up with using angels as messengers? Maybe Gabriel is your real suspect. Maybe Gabriel (Jibral) is some "Q" character, just playing with our universe because it's bored silly in the Q continuum.

Whatever...one story is as bad as the other.

[ComestibleVenom]

Humans have already tried and convicted God. That is why we will not let Him govern. We have already lobbied for the right to decide our own fate, both individually and collectively. Mary would never take God to Court, but we all collectively have. We demand that He explain Himself, yet He pleads the fifth.
The Jury is split on whether He should be considered a myth so as to end the trial and move on.

I motion to have the case overturned on the grounds that the existence of the defendant is in question. Until this is established, there's no grounds for a hearing. Next case.

[ComestibleVenom]

Whatever...one story is as bad as the other.

That's a deeply profound sentiment. Truly, the philosophical potency of that stance is underestimated.

[Bright Life]

doink-chan,

Makai seems right to me. Rape is only rape if it is unwanted sexual penetration of the mouth, vagina or anus. http://www.plauder-smilies.de/smileysex2.gif

Mary explicitly consented to be impregnated by the Holy Spirit according to Luke 1:38 --

"'I am the Lord's servant,' Mary answered. 'May it be to me as you have said.' Then the angel left her."

Regards,

- Scrutinizer


While I am loathe to jump into this OLD thread, I feel I must shoo the flies and beat this dead horse just a wee bit more to ask this question:

Does a slave have the ability to refuse her master anything?

A Lord of the Manor can get any woman he wants. Any resistance could easily be met with the full force of his wrath. Death, beatings...you get the point.

So, a 12-13 year old girl is going to say no to the Lord of the Universe? :down:

Come on!

[Kurt Slade]

While I am loathe to jump into this OLD thread, I feel I must shoo the flies and beat this dead horse just a wee bit more to ask this question:

Does a slave have the ability to refuse her master anything?

A Lord of the Manor can get any woman he wants. Any resistance could easily be met with the full force of his wrath. Death, beatings...you get the point.

So, a 12-13 year old girl is going to say no to the Lord of the Universe? :down:

Come on!

Sounds like Mel Brooks " Its good to be the king." LOL

However the lord of the manor analogy falls apart when you realize that the lord of the manor is a human being looking to satiate a human sexual drive.

Kurt

[Kurt Slade]

There would be no need to involve Mary's egg, she could have just been a surrogate mother for an already complete zygote, sort of an ultimate adoptive parent.


I agree that could just as well be used as an explanation.. LOL

I can’t believe that this has never been brought up as an answer before or that you did not think of it yourself.

Kurt

[Bright Life]

Sounds like Mel Brooks " Its good to be the king." LOL

However the lord of the manor analogy falls apart when you realize that the lord of the manor is a human being looking to satiate a human sexual drive.

Kurt


Actually, it doesn't. God's motives have no effect on the fact that Mary sees herself as the Lord's servant.

[Kurt Slade]

Actually, it doesn't. God's motives have no effect on the fact that Mary sees herself as the Lord's servant.


"Does a slave have the ability to refuse her master anything?"

You started under the "slave" heading. If she sees herself as a willing servant the analogy does not hold water ,IMO , as a willing servant is not a slave.

Kurt

[Bright Life]

"Does a slave have the ability to refuse her master anything?"

You started under the "slave" heading. If she sees herself as a willing servant the analogy does not hold water ,IMO , as a willing servant is not a slave.

Kurt

Still holds.

slave n.

1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: “I was still the slave of education and prejudice� (Edward Gibbon).
3. One who works extremely hard.
4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component.

ser·vant n.

1. One who is privately employed to perform domestic services.
2. One who is publicly employed to perform services, as for a government.
3. One who expresses submission, recognizance, or debt to another: your obedient servant.


Neither is in any position to choose.

[Kurt Slade]

Still holds.

slave n.

1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: “I was still the slave of education and prejudice� (Edward Gibbon).
3. One who works extremely hard.
4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component.

ser·vant n.

1. One who is privately employed to perform domestic services.
2. One who is publicly employed to perform services, as for a government.
3. One who expresses submission, recognizance, or debt to another: your obedient servant.


Neither is in any position to choose.

ROFLMAO. Nice try

I can only again point to your headline:

"Does a slave have the ability to refuse her master anything?" “Followed by “A Lord of the Manor can� get� any woman he wants. Any resistance could easily be met with the full force of his wrath. Death, beatings...you get the point.�

You were clearly using definition #1 " property of a person " as a slave in your original post. Or also defined as:



1. A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is
wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as
a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose
person and services are wholly under the control of
another.

And not many Slaves that were “Raped� would make comment like these from Luke.

47: And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48: For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49: For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

You will probably come back and say it’s a common post rape syndrome effect. LOL

And I am not even saying it even happened this way just that your analogy of a Human aristocrat “getting any woman� (sexual relations with a slave implied) doesn’t work in my opinion but if its part of some kind of atheist dogma far be it from me to infringe on your belief system.

Kurt

[Bright Life]

ROFLMAO. Nice try

I can only again point to your headline:

"Does a slave have the ability to refuse her master anything?" “Followed by “A Lord of the Manor can� get� any woman he wants. Any resistance could easily be met with the full force of his wrath. Death, beatings...you get the point.�

You were clearly using definition #1 " property of a person " as a slave in your original post. Or also defined as:



1. A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is
wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as
a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose
person and services are wholly under the control of
another.

And not many Slaves that were “Raped� would make comment like these from Luke.

47: And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48: For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49: For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

You will probably come back and say it’s a common post rape syndrome effect. LOL

And I am not even saying it even happened this way just that your analogy of a Human aristocrat “getting any woman� (sexual relations with a slave implied) doesn’t work in my opinion but if its part of some kind of atheist dogma far be it from me to infringe on your belief system.

Kurt


I'm not saying it happened in ANY way. I really could not care less. It's just a story. A nasty, sadistic story, but a story nonetheless. I posted my opinion of the story. I seriously doubt that the authors of the story would have known about common post rape syndrome effect. In any case, I don't intend to delve that deeply into the mental machinations of Iron Age sheepherders.

That being said, Mary was the slave/servant (whichever you want) of a diety who is a genocidal maniac. Perhaps you'd prefer to view it in that way. To deny god...well, shoot...you could be burned continuously for all eternity!

That better?

[Kurt Slade]

That better?
Perfect. I could not have written your response better myself. :thumbs:

[capsaicin67]

1. One who is privately employed to perform domestic services.

So best case scenario is that god was kinda like Strom Thurmond?

[Bright Life]

Perfect. I could not have written your response better myself. :thumbs:


Okay then :p

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

Was Mary ever actually asked if immaculate conception was what she wanted? :huh:

[DNAinaGoodway]

Was Mary ever actually asked if immaculate conception was what she wanted? :huh:

Technically, "immaculate conception" refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus'. It means that she was conceived "without original sin."

Mary could have conceived Jesus without intercourse, rape or otherwise. It happens often enough today, and they were just as randy then as we are now. If she and Joe, or Gabe, or whoever, were fooling around, heavy petting and dry humping, semen could have snuck in or been introduced digitally and her egg would be fertilized while she was still, technically, a virgin.

To answer your question though: Luke 1:31, she's told she'll conceive. Luke 1:35, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you" (I'm not making this up) Luke 1:38 She consents. She isn't asked, she's told, and her reply is, she's a good servant and will do as she's told. That's the story anyway.

[MortalWombat]

Luke 1:35, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you"
If anything, this passage shows that the Holy Spirit didn't really want to get her pregnant. That's why he pulled out and gave her a pearl necklace instead. Just goes to show how ineffective that method is for birth control.

[DNAinaGoodway]

God's Magic Sperm(TM)


Every sperm is sacred..................

[Rudolph]

The God and Mary story is actually a breach of copyright and the ancient Greeks are very pissed off at this second rate copy of their original idea.

[Newton Joseph]

That story is sickening to me, because it makes me think of rape, and only proves to me that God is a big doink. Do you think that Mary's having a kid with "God" is considered rape, or not?[/QUOTE]


THE SEDUCTION OF A VIRGIN NAMED MARY
By New10.


All Christians subscribe to the notion that the Holy Ghost knocked up the Virgin Mary. This brings to mind all kinds of questions that a reasonable person might ask. Who was Mary's gynecologist who broke the rule of confidentiality and told the world that Mary was a virgin? Another question that comes to mind, did the Virgin Mary want to be pregnant, did she ask the Holy Ghost to lie with her? And how about Joseph, how does feel about being cuckold by a Holy Ghost? Did the virgin named Mary concoct this story of being knocked up by a Holy Ghost to escape criticism of being with child by another then with poor Joseph? Wasn't Mary in reality committing adultery with the ghost that was not so holy?
Doesn't her thinly veiled excuse of adultery with a Ghost raise questions that a good Christian might ask? How does a ghost described in my dictionary as; a disembodied soul, a faint shadowy trace. How did this Holy Ghost impregnate little Virgin Mary? Did the ghost have a penis? If the Holy Ghost is incorporeal, how was "he" able to pull this pregnancy off?
If the Holy Ghost was incorporeal, I assume Mary did not derive any pleasure from this union. Just like a chauvinistic pig, the Holy Ghost wasn't concerned if Mary had an orgasm. From what I understand about this Holy Ghost affair, the Holy Ghost did have an orgasm ( I might be old fashion but I think that what it takes to knock up a virgin) And of course Mary being just a simple peasant girl felt she had to give in to the Holy Ghosts advances and smothering kisses.
Another question that comes to mind, if the Holy Ghost was incorporeal how did Mary know who knocked her up? Another question that come to mind, who was taking notes on all that was going on between the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary?
Did Mary contrive this story to deceive poor Joseph who does not appear to be too bright? Was this tryst a one-time fling or has it been going on for some time? Was this the same Holy Ghost that has been knocking up virgins to give birth to divine, Godchildren we read about in older civilizations? (What a sly devil he is) Can you imagine the delight of the Holy Ghost in seducing some of the most beautiful women who were the wives and sisters of kings.
Is it possible that Mary had this adulterous affair because Joseph was a lousy lover? We know that the Holy Ghost did not wear a condom, is this why Catholic Church forbids the use of condoms because of the Holy Ghost? Do you suppose this naïve virgin did not know how babies are made? Or did the Holy Ghost lull the Virgin Mary into a false sense of security by telling her he had a vasectomy? Is it possible the Holy Ghost promised marriage if she divorce Joseph? Or did the Holy Ghost take advantage of the Virgin named Mary that he just wanted to put it in just a little bit? Did the Holy Ghost tell Mary she couldn't become pregnant if he put it in a tiny bit? Another question that comes to mind was there any foreplay to arouse the virgin named Mary or did he stick it in because the Holy Ghost wanted a quick fuck?
Did the Holy Ghost make up the story that the virgin named Mary would be the mother of a God, just so he can seduce her? I am sure that the idea of giving birth to a God by this simple peasant girl could bring her fame and riches. I am almost certain that the whole story of the Immaculate Conception was the Virgin Mary's story to hide her indiscretion because she knew the town's people were a little dense. And history has shown the simpletons of that period just accepted the story as they have for thousands of years of fantastic and supernatural births just as they do today(nothing has changed)
On the other side of the coin, is it possible that the virgin named Mary was paranoid and convinced of the truth that she was a virgin that gave birth to a God? After all, it is only the word of the virgin named Mary isn't it? If Mary did not give consent to this adulteress affair would it not seem evident that the Holy Ghost raped the virgin named Mary? Wasn't she surprised according Christian literature she just woke up one morning and discovered she was with child? There is no indication that the virgin named Mary told her friends, family or neighbors that she wanted a child. Did the Ghost that was holy take financial responsibility and obligations that would occur if there were a child of his union with the virgin named Mary?
It is evident the Holy Ghost was not a noble Ghost. The way the story is told, it sounds as though the Holy Ghost just sneaked up on the virgin named Mary one evening as she lie in bed.
One definition in my dictionary of a ghost or spirit is a supernatural being or essence, spirit, and often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible; a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being. This description certainly sounds like the Holy Ghost is a rapist.

:devil1:

[OdysseusTheInnkeeper]

Technically, "immaculate conception" refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus'. It means that she was conceived "without original sin."

Mary could have conceived Jesus without intercourse, rape or otherwise. It happens often enough today, and they were just as randy then as we are now. If she and Joe, or Gabe, or whoever, were fooling around, heavy petting and dry humping, semen could have snuck in or been introduced digitally and her egg would be fertilized while she was still, technically, a virgin.

To answer your question though: Luke 1:31, she's told she'll conceive. Luke 1:35, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you" (I'm not making this up) Luke 1:38 She consents. She isn't asked, she's told, and her reply is, she's a good servant and will do as she's told. That's the story anyway.
As a 'good servant' she could just as well be considered to be raped. consent under threat or servitude is not true volitional consent. And there's no 'may I/we' interogative phrase in your quote. She wasn't even worthy of being asked.