Let me get this straight... About 6,000 years ago a god named Yahweh decides to create everything, including the first humans. These first humans are called Adam and Eve and we are told they were made in the image of Yahweh himself. Yahweh places these humans in a garden called Eden with a tree that he says has deadly poisonous fruit. Not knowing any better, because they are innocent, Adam and Eve are tricked by a talking serpent into eating some of the forbidden fruit. But instead of killing them, like Yahweh said it would, the fruit gives Adam and Eve the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong. The first "wrong" they apparently notice is that their own bodies, which were created in the image of Yahweh himself, are dirty and sinful, so they promptly cover themselves up.
Well, this cover up is what clues the all-knowing Yahweh in to the fact that Adam and Eve ate some fruit and found out that Yahweh is a bald faced liar and that the forbidden fruit isn't actually deadly. Yahweh is so pissed off about this "original sin" that he not only punishes Adam and Eve, he decides to punish all of their descendants too. And he doesn't come up with just any old punishment. Yahweh decides that the punishment to be inflicted on hundreds of generations of people for the sin of their great, great, great, great, great, great, great... great grandparents is eternal torment and suffering in a place called Hell. Sounds fair, right?
Well, don't worry, after about 4,000 years or so the generous and kind Yahweh decides he will finally forgive humankind for their ancient ancestor's fruit eating transgression. But, for some reason, Yahweh can't just forgive people for this original sin. Instead, Yahweh comes up with an elaborate plan to save humanity from his own terrible wrath.
The first stage of Yahweh's plan to forgive humankind for the sins of their fruit eating ancient ancestors is to impregnate a 12 or 13 year old virgin named Mary without her prior consent (rape?) or the consent of her fiance Joseph. But Yahweh can't be bothered to stick around the next morning for breakfast and has his assistant Gabriel explain to Mary that she has been impregnated and when she gives birth she must name the kid Jesus.
According to Luke 1:26-27 this all happened in the sixth month of the year which, according to the Hebrew calendar, is September. That means the god-violated virgin child would have given birth to her son Jesus in April or May even though Jesus' birth will later be celebrated in December. Why December? Because Jesus is no ordinary human child. He is also Yahweh himself. He is a god-man. And according to most other religions, god-men are always born in December.
The second stage of Yahweh's plan for the salvation of humankind is to have Jesus go around a relatively small portion of the world and confuse people with strange nonsensical parables and self-contradictory statements. For example, in Matthew 5:16 Jesus says "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works." But later in Matthew 6:1-4 Jesus says "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them… that thine alms may be in secret."
Instead of teaching people about the causes and cures of debilitating diseases, the nature of the universe or other useful information, Jesus instead miraculously heals a few people and mysteriously decides not to write anything down so that future generations will have to rely on hearsay to understand his teachings. Finally, Jesus decides to uncharacteristically throw a tantrum in a temple in Jerusalem which attracts the attention of the Roman authorities. But don't worry, this is all part of Yahweh's brilliant plan.
In the third stage of Yahweh's plan to finally forgive humanity for the sins of their fruit eating ancestors, Jesus is betrayed by a friend, arrested, mercilessly tortured, crucified by the Romans and his corpse is stuffed into a cave. But, after his death, Jesus spends a few days suffering in Hell (just to see what it is like, I guess) before physically returning to Earth to show himself to a small group of people. He tells them that they should be grateful to Yahweh for having his own son tortured and killed so that he could forgive them for having ancient ancestors who once ate some forbidden fruit. Jesus then ascends into a paradise in the sky, called Heaven, to sit at the right hand of himself and pass judgment on all those who don't believe this crazy story is true.
Title is misleading. The bible says he sent a spirit - or a Dove to whisper something in her ear - and planted the seed.
He did not force his Galactic Penis into her little virgin Holiness. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that - So that isn't rape.
So sorry to say - I LOVE to bash Christianity - but to say this is simply wrong. Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest Mary was raped By God.
You could say Mary was 'impregnated' by the 'Holy Spirit' - Which some would say IS God - The trinity. But that doesn't mean Rape.
But the rest of the post is Great!
Again, I state the fact:
God in the mythological stories - did not 'physically' do anything. He also did not do anything 'against her will'. He just simply did it - without caring what her opinion was. So yes, she did not provide direct consent , but that has nothing to do with Rape.
"Through physical force" ... "Sexual Intercourse" ... "Forced upon a person" ...
None of which is done by Yahweh / Holy Spirit.
Consent has nothing to do with it by itself. It must be a sexual intercourse through Physical Force.
Unless you wish to update the definitions?
If you are referring to the texts in the Bible as "facts", then I would suggest that you have negated your refutation that it was "rape."
"God" purportedly did make physical contact with Mary (how else would he have impregnated her, even if it was not through normal sexual intercourse), which you have not disputed to be 12 or 13-years-old and below the age of consent, and that would make it statutory rape by today's standards. I think you would find "God" convicted if he were tried in a US court today for this crime no matter how the term was worded in a dictionary or law book. If a 13-year-old Mary were artificially inseminated against her will (or without her prior consent) today by anyone (omnipotent or human) it would be defined as "rape." If it were not defined as "rape", then at the very least it would be considered "sexual harassment." There seems to be some conflicting information in your first link about Mary being asked prior to her impregnation and how it was done (and since I don't own a copy of the "Big Book of Lies", not do I consider it worth my time to research the actual passages that support the 'real story), I'll just take it as read that she really didn't have a choice about her role in that "HIStory book."
Of course all of this speculation and debate is ridiculous since none of it ever happened, but merely an entertaining diversion on a cold winter's eve. No matter how you define the term, it was never her choice or "free will" to carry 'Jesus', especially since it was unlikely that she was in any position to deny a "Deity's Whim." The myth of Hercules was just as ridiculous in that Zeus supposedly took on the form of a Bull to rape his mother, so one might derive its story as being the original inspiration for the 'Jesus' mythological origin...
You are being silly.
It wasn't forced physical contact. It's a difference.
If I walk up to girl on the street , and touch her shoulder and say "Miss, may I speak to you?"
Your point about 'age of consent' is also silly. There was no such thing in those times. Young girls had to be pregnant young because the average life span was only about 28 - 30 years old.
Nobody knows how old Mary was. But I have read from multiple sources that it could be between 12 - 18. If you take the average, and extend it Plus or Minus 3.
"and since I don't own a copy of the "Big Book of Lies", not do I consider it worth my time to research the actual passages that support the 'real story)"
Ok, then that is your choice. But you're still wrong about the rape.
Thanks Doone for clarifying that.
Okay, I gotta jump in here.
You stated that, "He also did not do anything 'against her will'. He just simply did it - without caring what her opinion was. So yes, she did not provide direct consent , but that has nothing to do with Rape."
I have a hard time swallowing this simply because failure to ask permission, means no consent. Not caring about her opinion and doing it anyway is at least sexual assault. If she were asleep or drugged and woke up pregnant, then her physical inability to say yes or no, is defined as assault.
If I do something, anything without prior consent, I've done so against your will. Period!
I understand that during that particular time period, rape had a different definition, but it also was different in the 1950's too. Back then husbands "couldn't" rape their wives. In 2010, yes they can.
I think what Allen is trying to say is based on today's definition, it could easily be considered rape. No matter how mythical or spiritual the act, it's without consent.
Since there is no documentation of this immaculate conception, since those of us with rational brains know this is not possible, the definitions can only apply to what would realistically be a rape.
Since the only way to impregnate a woman back then, would have been through penile penetration. Had this occurred. Which it didn't. :)
LoL - Thoughtful post.
"if I do something, anything without prior consent, I've done so against your will. Period!"
Ok, I grant you this point.
Ok - I'm going to try to define another situation in which a woman could get pregnant without penetration occuring - and it being against her will.
A doctor designs a method of transferring sperm into the egg without penetration - let's say for the sake of argument ... it's a needle injection.
Well, Freddy gets ahold of one of these things - and enters into Mary's room - and sticks the needle into her forearm while she is sleeping.
Mary then finds out a few weeks later that she is pregnant.
Did Freddy 'rape' her? I find that the use of this word is just incorrect. I don't see how this would be any different than God 'thinking' a pregnancy to happen - or sending himself as the Holy Ghost (whatever the hell that is!) to impregnate her through non forceful actions.
I don't have a vagina - I don't give birth - so I can't tell from a womans perspective ... so yeah I agree there is clearly a violation of body in both of these situations ... but to me that isn't 'rape'.
Oh, and I'm arguing based off 'if the biblical stories were representative of truth and reality'
I don't know. I don't praise this as quickly as others seem to be doing. Yahweh never said the fruit was 'deadly and poisonous', he said it was forbidden. God, if he existed, would hardly need to justify that command to a mortal. The reason it's forbidden, as far as we can surmise, is that the tree of knowledge (symbolically), bears morality as a fruit. When you're intelligent, you also tend to be moral (for sake of argument, let's take those who are mentally challenged--- they are less likely to be able to understand why killing is wrong except by reiterating what they're told). God simply did not want them to have the knowledge of good and evil because they would now have to suffer-- when you are blissfully ignorant, there is no such thing as suffering. The snake never tricked or lied to Eve-- he told her the truth. God lamented about the outcome should the mortals eat the fruit of knowledge, saying 'They will become like us' (no surprise he tends to use plurals here, since the origin of Yahweh was probably a pantheon of Gods wherein he was much like the Greek Zeus). And the snake jumped on that, only repeating the truth-- that they would become like God, powerful and knowledgeable. When God threatened them with death, it was obviously a spiritual death, not a physical death. They became sort of 'dead' in the eyes of the Lord because of their sin, and while he may still have loved humanity, he did so from a distance.
But this goes to say that God, being omniscient and omnipresent would have already known that this was going to unfold, and that it unfolded that way for a reason; that, in fact, there was no other way for it to happen and that God would unlikely be wrathful about a mistake he predicted.
I don't look at Christianity anywhere near as spitefully as you seem to; I try to argue against it using more clarity in my logic to defend their point before I dismantle it, rather than attacking it by misconstruing what the texts say.