Rape and the virgin birth

[ideologyhunter]

That would at least explain God's dickishness. The Midianites were mostly rapists and murderers and, I assume, some good people.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

It's neither rape nor fornication. It's the equivalent of a farmer artificially inseminating one of his cows. He doesn't need or ask for consent, he just goes ahead and does it, because it's his cow and he can do what he likes with it. We are God's cattle, and he can fuck with us however he wants, without even the laws that limit what a human farmer can do with his animals.

Moo.

 

[Lion IRC]

Sounds like rape to me

God is involved every time a new human life is created.
Not rape.
Not adultery.
Move on. Nothing to see here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That would at least explain God's dickishness. The Midianites were mostly rapists and murderers and, I assume, some good people.

Didn’t the Midianites shelter Moses when he fled Egypt after accidentally killing a guard?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you're saying God has semen? Does He have DNA?

I'm saying you (plural) are confusing or over looking the ability of what a man can only do... and what God can do.

(even if you don't believe it at least get the concept of their respected natures right)

Correct. Man must obfuscate all of the evils that have happened on Earth in order to justify God still exists.

God doesn’t need to obfuscate cause he ain’t got no limits for apathy.

 

[steve_bank]

Joseph honey, I need to speak to you. I am pregnant by god without having sex.

Sure honey, whatever you say.

I remember something I read. There was a group of Jews where husbands and wives lived apart, the wives were referred to as virgins. The problem for us today is that literal translation may not be correct in terms of colloquialisms and context.

 

[bilby]

Sounds like rape to me

God is involved every time a new human life is created.
Not rape.
Not adultery.
Move on. Nothing to see here.

Oh. So if Mary and Jesus are just another example of something that happens all the time, why is this story even something anyone should care about?

You can't have it both ways.

Either God's involvement was of no particular importance, as per your argument above, in which case, why care about this particular instance of conception?

Or God's involvement was something unique in the case of Mary's conception of Jesus, in which case your argument above is nonsense.

So are you dismissing as trivial one of the central tenets of your religion, or just full of shit? (Note, these are not necessarily exclusive - you could also be doing both at once).

 

[Lion IRC]

bilby, immaculate conception is NOT the central theme of the Gospel.
#forest_trees

 

[bilby]

bilby, immaculate conception is NOT the central theme of the Gospel.
#forest_trees

Immaculate conception refers to the conception of Mary as a person without sin; Not her conception of Jesus as the offspring of her adulterous relationship with Jehovah.

For fucks sake, at least try to understand your own fiction, before criticising others for their lack of grasp of what is canon.

Jesus's status as son of god is central to Christianity. Immaculate conception is a totally different thing and is about Mary's status, and not directly about Jesus's.

Or are you saying that Jesus's status as son of god is not the central theme of the gospel?

 

[Lion IRC]

Mary's womb was immaculate.
Her conception with Jesus was not sexual, not rape, not adultery.

Don't preach catechism at me pal!

 

[bilby]

Mary's womb was immaculate.
Her conception with Jesus was not sexual, not rape, not adultery.

Don't preach catechism at me pal!

If you don't like being corrected, don't get the obvious things wrong.

If you start banging on about Luke Skywalker being Darth Vader's father, you can expect to be thought ignorant of the source material.

The same applies if you think that immaculate conception is about Jesus being the son of god.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Mary's womb was immaculate.
Her conception with Jesus was not sexual, not rape, not adultery.

Don't preach catechism at me pal!

bilby's right, you're wrong. The Immaculate Conception was the conception of Mary, which had to be immaculate because only a woman free from the stain of Original Sin could give birth to the son of God.

But don't beat yourself up about it, it's a common mistake.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Anyway, isn't this whole virgin birth miniseries based on the fact that the gospel writers misread Isaiah?

 

[bilby]

..

 

[Lion IRC]

Mary's womb was immaculate.
Her conception with Jesus was not sexual, not rape, not adultery.

Don't preach catechism at me pal!

bilby's right, you're wrong. The Immaculate Conception was the conception of Mary, which had to be immaculate because only a woman free from the stain of Original Sin could give birth to the son of God.

But don't beat yourself up about it, it's a common mistake.

It is NOT a mistake to say that Mary's conception of Jesus was immaculate. It is a mistake (unscriptural) to say that Mary's mother was ALSO immaculate when Mary was conceived.

I'm perfectly well aware what the Catholic Church thinks about how Mary herself was conceived.

But it sets up a chain of past-regression whereby Mary's mother also needs to be free from original sin in order to immaculately conceive Mary. Then too does Mary's grandmother need to be immaculately conceived lest she pass on her original sin. And so forth and so on all the way back to Eve.

 

[Elixir]

Mary's womb was immaculate.
Her conception with Jesus was not sexual, not rape, not adultery.

Don't preach catechism at me pal!

bilby's right, you're wrong. The Immaculate Conception was the conception of Mary, which had to be immaculate because only a woman free from the stain of Original Sin could give birth to the son of God.

But don't beat yourself up about it, it's a common mistake.

It is NOT a mistake to say that Mary's conception of Jesus was immaculate. It is a mistake (unscriptural) to say that Mary's mother was ALSO immaculate when Mary was conceived.

I'm perfectly well aware what the Catholic Church thinks about how Mary herself was conceived.

But it sets up a chain of past-regression whereby Mary's mother also needs to be free from original sin in order to immaculately conceive Mary. Then too does Mary's grandmother need to be immaculately conceived lest she pass on her original sin. And so forth and so on all the way back to Eve.

Meh. So Jesus was a product of parthenogenesis? That makes him her female!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, why couldn't they all be immaculate? All God would need to do is decide that all her female ancestors were immaculate and then history goes ahead and rewrites itself to agree with his position on the matter. Or he could just forgive Mary's mother for her original sin and free her from it.

 

[bilby]

The immaculate status of Mary and her female ancestors aside, Jehova and she are still either adulterers, or god's involvement in Jesus's conception was an unremarkable event that applies to all human births, so Jesus was just another guy like everyone else.

Mary and Jehova should be put to death in accordance with the law. Or Christianity is pointless, because Jesus was just an ordinary bloke.

 

[steve_bank]

As to catechism, The Catholic theology has very little to do with the gospels, which have very little dialogue attributed to JC. The catechism is a 0100 years of religious invention.

Catholicism is a strange mix of female purity and idolization, little value beyond babies, and subservience to men. It is little wonder why we all thwese sexual problems like rape. People get upset to see a woman breast feeding in public.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Mary's womb was immaculate.
Her conception with Jesus was not sexual, not rape, not adultery.

Don't preach catechism at me pal!

bilby's right, you're wrong. The Immaculate Conception was the conception of Mary, which had to be immaculate because only a woman free from the stain of Original Sin could give birth to the son of God.

But don't beat yourself up about it, it's a common mistake.

It is NOT a mistake to say that Mary's conception of Jesus was immaculate. It is a mistake (unscriptural) to say that Mary's mother was ALSO immaculate when Mary was conceived.

I'm perfectly well aware what the Catholic Church thinks about how Mary herself was conceived.

But it sets up a chain of past-regression whereby Mary's mother also needs to be free from original sin in order to immaculately conceive Mary. Then too does Mary's grandmother need to be immaculately conceived lest she pass on her original sin. And so forth and so on all the way back to Eve.

So what you're saying is that it makes no sense when you think about it for just a minute? Welcome to the fold.