|
Post by goz on Nov 27, 2018 20:29:40 GMT
We should all blame the turkeys! Normally, blame should go to the lagomorphs. Well, traditionally lagomorphs have not need assistance with their procreation, so it is reasonable to assume that their 'basters' are quite archaic, underperformed and utilised, unlike the turkeys Note the precision, curved for comfort and other godly features!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 1:14:14 GMT
Even if Mary had consented there was obviously a mighty power imbalance there. It's like when a child thinks "how can I tell daddy no?" That being said, you politically correct feminized atheists take the concept of consent and sex to whole new levels of absurdity. Almost every religion on earth has a myth of a woman (or a man) who was the sexual consort of god. Only liberal feminist idiots in the West would call that rape. I looked up "feminized atheist" to see if it was an actual thing lol😅 And I know! The concept of consent needs to communicated verbally and by actually saying "no" because people can't read minds. Trying to give signals or social cues that you're not interested just can't be understood by everyone.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 28, 2018 1:23:55 GMT
Even if Mary had consented there was obviously a mighty power imbalance there. It's like when a child thinks "how can I tell daddy no?" That being said, you politically correct feminized atheists take the concept of consent and sex to whole new levels of absurdity. Almost every religion on earth has a myth of a woman (or a man) who was the sexual consort of god. Only liberal feminist idiots in the West would call that rape. I looked up "feminized atheist" to see if it was an actual thing lol😅 And I know! The concept of consent needs to communicated verbally and by actually saying "no" because people can't read minds. Trying to give signals or social cues that you're not interested just can't be understood by everyone. That's an interesting concept. Why is the 'default' to say 'no' to withdraw consent, and not having to say 'yes' to give consent? It seems that an absence of a 'no' is taken for complicit consent too often. Some cases have even hinged on women being quiet and not screaming or kicking in self preservation. Why not have a requirement of a 'yes' consent in the first place and not have an absence of consent taken as consent by the aggressive party?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 1:39:15 GMT
I looked up "feminized atheist" to see if it was an actual thing lol😅 And I know! The concept of consent needs to communicated verbally and by actually saying "no" because people can't read minds. Trying to give signals or social cues that you're not interested just can't be understood by everyone. That's an interesting concept. Why is the 'default' to say 'no' to withdraw consent, and not having to say 'yes' to give consent? It seems that an absence of a 'no' is taken for complicit consent too often. Some cases have even hinged on women being quiet and not screaming or kicking in self preservation. Why not have a requirement of a 'yes' consent in the first place and not have an absence of consent taken as consent by the aggressive party? That is good point but it also seems unnecessary to be required to say "yes" if you are already choosing to act within the sexual act. Why would you do something if you didn't want to do it as well as knowing you had the opportunity to choose to withdraw from it but didn't? If you truly didn't consent you would make sure that message would come across, and verbal communication is the best way to address that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 12:38:17 GMT
I looked up "feminized atheist" to see if it was an actual thing lol😅 And I know! The concept of consent needs to communicated verbally and by actually saying "no" because people can't read minds. Trying to give signals or social cues that you're not interested just can't be understood by everyone. I'm addressing atheism because this thread is about God and Mary. I'm referring to an atheist who is also a feminist because feminists have complicated the crime of rape to points of absurdity. It is rape if the woman is drunk. We're told now a drunken woman is incapable of consent. This comes from feminists. We're also told by feminists that even if a woman consents to sex, she can change her mind up to the point of male orgasm and tell him to stop. And if he can't or doesn't stop he is as much a rapist as if he lunged at her from behind a bush in the park. This is why we have silly questions like this one where people actually believe the power imbalance between a god and a human makes divine sex tantamount to rape. I never viewed the immaculate conception as something caused by sexual intercourse, because that is what makes it immaculate. Isn’t sexual contact sinful, as in something only humans do for being imperfect and flawed for feeling those physical desires unlike God? If Mary was free of sin it would be assumed she was conceived in a miraculous way as a virgin. I think it can still be considered rape if the woman or man was drunk because drinking affects your judgement and the other person would be taking advantage of that. However that may depend on circumstance. I don’t agree that a woman or a man can originally consent then take it back when it’s too late and the decision has already been made. That’s like purposely trying to set someone up for a rape accusation against them. I would really like to know why it is so hard just to say no? I feel like it’s the only effective way of non-consenting.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Nov 28, 2018 13:41:11 GMT
I'm addressing atheism because this thread is about God and Mary. I'm referring to an atheist who is also a feminist because feminists have complicated the crime of rape to points of absurdity. It is rape if the woman is drunk. We're told now a drunken woman is incapable of consent. This comes from feminists. We're also told by feminists that even if a woman consents to sex, she can change her mind up to the point of male orgasm and tell him to stop. And if he can't or doesn't stop he is as much a rapist as if he lunged at her from behind a bush in the park. This is why we have silly questions like this one where people actually believe the power imbalance between a god and a human makes divine sex tantamount to rape. I never viewed the immaculate conception as something caused by sexual intercourse, because that is what makes it immaculate. Isn’t sexual contact sinful, as in something only humans do for being imperfect and flawed for feeling those physical desires unlike God? If Mary was free of sin it would be assumed she was conceived in a miraculous way as a virgin. I think it can still be considered rape if the woman or man was drunk because drinking affects your judgement and the other person would be taking advantage of that. However that may depend on circumstance. I don’t agree that a woman or a man can originally consent then take it back when it’s too late and the decision has already been made. That’s like purposely trying to set someone up for a rape accusation against them. I would really like to know why it is so hard just to say no? I feel like it’s the only effective way of non-consenting. The Immaculate Conception in Catholic doctrine is the belief Mary herself was conceived without original sin via God's grace. She was born of her parents in the traditional way other than that.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 28, 2018 19:33:52 GMT
I never viewed the immaculate conception as something caused by sexual intercourse, because that is what makes it immaculate. Isn’t sexual contact sinful, as in something only humans do for being imperfect and flawed for feeling those physical desires unlike God? If Mary was free of sin it would be assumed she was conceived in a miraculous way as a virgin. I think it can still be considered rape if the woman or man was drunk because drinking affects your judgement and the other person would be taking advantage of that. However that may depend on circumstance. I don’t agree that a woman or a man can originally consent then take it back when it’s too late and the decision has already been made. That’s like purposely trying to set someone up for a rape accusation against them. I would really like to know why it is so hard just to say no? I feel like it’s the only effective way of non-consenting. The Immaculate Conception in Catholic doctrine is the belief Mary herself was conceived without original sin via God's grace. She was born of her parents in the traditional way other than that. Wait! That's incest.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 28, 2018 19:47:19 GMT
The Immaculate Conception in Catholic doctrine is the belief Mary herself was conceived without original sin via God's grace. She was born of her parents in the traditional way other than that. Wait!
That's incest.In the cloudy realm of The Trinity believers... Things get a little weird... Since, in the mind of Medieval Trinitarians, Jesus is God... That means that Mary is "The Mother Of God"... being the mother of God... she couldn't have been made by the dirty sin of people doin' da nasty... So it was decided that she was born without sin, as well as Jesus... and was thus immaculately conceived, too... Of course.. Being the mother of God, also means that God impregnated His own mother to give birth to Jesus, that is to say, Himself...
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 28, 2018 19:51:07 GMT
In the cloudy realm of The Trinity believers... Things get a little weird... Since, in the mind of Medieval Trinitarians, Jesus is God... That means that Mary is "The Mother Of God"... being the mother of God... she couldn't have been made by the dirty sin of people doin' da nasty... So it was decided that she was born without sin, as well as Jesus... and was thus immaculately conceived, too... Of course.. Being the mother of God, also means that God impregnated His own mother to give birth to Jesus, that is to say, Himself... I sometimes think that they should have thought this out a little better!
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Nov 28, 2018 21:27:03 GMT
An unwanted pregnancy. And so we celebrate something that is an oppression of a woman. Pretty much...and even IF due to her perception of God's influence and power she was scared into accepting the condition, it certainly is a "higher" power taking advantage of the lowliest of humans. In society today, it is frowned upon and considered harassment for a boss, or someone in authority to "request" sexual favors from an underling. How much more would a God be seen as "in control of" Mary. I mean, what was she to have said? No? I mean by that time, the deed was done...she was 'with child.'
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 28, 2018 21:44:46 GMT
An unwanted pregnancy. And so we celebrate something that is an oppression of a woman. Pretty much...and even IF due to her perception of God's influence and power she was scared into accepting the condition, it certainly is a "higher" power taking advantage of the lowliest of humans. In society today, it is frowned upon and considered harassment for a boss, or someone in authority to "request" sexual favors from an underling. How much more would a God be seen as "in control of" Mary. 1) There is no sexual favor in the story..... Mary doesn't have to have sex to be impregnated... That is explained to her... 2) She doesn't work for God... she chooses to be devout follower of God 3) A woman still has the right to choose to have sex with her boss or do any non-sexual favor... It's only rape if it's unwanted and/or she's made to do it out of fear. 4) The story doesn't say that God threatened her or that she was scared of divine reprisal. 5) She had every right to say "Yes".... and "No". Once again... It's always idiots who don't actually know the story... It wasn't done, yet... She asks how it will happen and the angel tells her how it will happen...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 23:04:10 GMT
I never viewed the immaculate conception as something caused by sexual intercourse, because that is what makes it immaculate. Isn’t sexual contact sinful, as in something only humans do for being imperfect and flawed for feeling those physical desires unlike God? If Mary was free of sin it would be assumed she was conceived in a miraculous way as a virgin. I think it can still be considered rape if the woman or man was drunk because drinking affects your judgement and the other person would be taking advantage of that. However that may depend on circumstance. I don’t agree that a woman or a man can originally consent then take it back when it’s too late and the decision has already been made. That’s like purposely trying to set someone up for a rape accusation against them. I would really like to know why it is so hard just to say no? I feel like it’s the only effective way of non-consenting. The Immaculate Conception in Catholic doctrine is the belief Mary herself was conceived without original sin via God's grace. She was born of her parents in the traditional way other than that. Yeah that what I was trying to explain. 😅
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Nov 28, 2018 23:15:56 GMT
Pretty much...and even IF due to her perception of God's influence and power she was scared into accepting the condition, it certainly is a "higher" power taking advantage of the lowliest of humans. In society today, it is frowned upon and considered harassment for a boss, or someone in authority to "request" sexual favors from an underling. How much more would a God be seen as "in control of" Mary. 1) There is no sexual favor in the story..... Mary doesn't have to have sex to be impregnated... That is explained to her... 2) She doesn't work for God... she chooses to be devout follower of God 3) A woman still has the right to choose to have sex with her boss or do any non-sexual favor... It's only rape if it's unwanted and/or she's made to do it out of fear. 4) The story doesn't say that God threatened her or that she was scared of divine reprisal. 5) She had every right to say "Yes".... and "No". Once again... It's always idiots who don't actually know the story... It wasn't done, yet... She asks how it will happen and the angel tells her how it will happen...
Ok we can take the 'sex' out of it, but it's still God asking an underling to bear his child. What was she to have doine? Said no to God? And if she wasn't afraid, why would the angle have to say don't be afraid? And I didn't suggest rape in the case of the boss using his influence to "get" some underling to do his bidding...like bear his child.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 28, 2018 23:31:22 GMT
Ok we can take the 'sex' out of it, but it's still God asking an underling to bear his child. What was she to have doine? Said no to God?
Yes. NEXT! He says it when he first appears..... It's an understandable sentiment: A cat jumping out of nowhere scares us.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Nov 28, 2018 23:31:59 GMT
1) There is no sexual favor in the story..... Mary doesn't have to have sex to be impregnated... That is explained to her... 2) She doesn't work for God... she chooses to be devout follower of God 3) A woman still has the right to choose to have sex with her boss or do any non-sexual favor... It's only rape if it's unwanted and/or she's made to do it out of fear. 4) The story doesn't say that God threatened her or that she was scared of divine reprisal. 5) She had every right to say "Yes".... and "No". Once again... It's always idiots who don't actually know the story... It wasn't done, yet... She asks how it will happen and the angel tells her how it will happen...
Ok we can take the 'sex' out of it, but it's still God asking an underling to bear his child. What was she to have doine? Said no to God? And if she wasn't afraid, why would the angle have to say don't be afraid? And I didn't suggest rape in the case of the boss using his influence to "get" some underling to do his bidding...like bear his child.
I see where you're coming from. In this instance, I'd like for the gospels to be more explicit, to communicate what and how in a way we could understand. The way it reads, you certainly can interpret that Mary felt compelled in an unfair way. It's a mystery. What are the details? Perhaps she had a choice, and she decided it would be a privilege. Or, it could be as you said. Or, God could know her mind, and know she thought it would be a privilege. A lot of things that were "common knowledge" at the time were left for people today to wonder about. It's like that cousin you have you is like Morey Amsterdam, and you write down how funny he was, not being specific, because all the cousins know him, and then a century later, when none of you are around, your descendants read what you wrote, but they don't know he was like Morey Amsterdam. They wonder if he was like Don Rickles, or Johnny Carson, or Groucho or Harpo. And you do further make a point, because this is supposed to be divine inspiration for all time, to be communicated to all people for all time, and yet we have confusion. So your point is taken. I think it's a puzzle. But I'm mostly Gnostic, so I see the Bible as a puzzle.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Nov 29, 2018 0:53:54 GMT
Ok we can take the 'sex' out of it, but it's still God asking an underling to bear his child. What was she to have doine? Said no to God?
Yes. NEXT! He says it when he first appears..... It's an understandable sentiment: A cat jumping out of nowhere scares us.
Ok ok I retract my complaint.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Nov 29, 2018 0:55:56 GMT
Ok we can take the 'sex' out of it, but it's still God asking an underling to bear his child. What was she to have doine? Said no to God? And if she wasn't afraid, why would the angle have to say don't be afraid? And I didn't suggest rape in the case of the boss using his influence to "get" some underling to do his bidding...like bear his child.
I see where you're coming from. In this instance, I'd like for the gospels to be more explicit, to communicate what and how in a way we could understand. The way it reads, you certainly can interpret that Mary felt compelled in an unfair way. It's a mystery. What are the details? Perhaps she had a choice, and she decided it would be a privilege. Or, it could be as you said. Or, God could know her mind, and know she thought it would be a privilege. A lot of things that were "common knowledge" at the time were left for people today to wonder about. It's like that cousin you have you is like Morey Amsterdam, and you write down how funny he was, not being specific, because all the cousins know him, and then a century later, when none of you are around, your descendants read what you wrote, but they don't know he was like Morey Amsterdam. They wonder if he was like Don Rickles, or Johnny Carson, or Groucho or Harpo. And you do further make a point, because this is supposed to be divine inspiration for all time, to be communicated to all people for all time, and yet we have confusion. So your point is taken. I think it's a puzzle. But I'm mostly Gnostic, so I see the Bible as a puzzle. I enjoy the Bible and other ancient works like it because, like you it's kind of a puzzle and it gives insight into how they thought back then. I like looking for tidbits that I think tell me how they came to believe what they believed and what convinced them.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 29, 2018 17:27:51 GMT
1) There is no sexual favor in the story..... Mary doesn't have to have sex to be impregnated... That is explained to her... 2) She doesn't work for God... she chooses to be devout follower of God 3) A woman still has the right to choose to have sex with her boss or do any non-sexual favor... It's only rape if it's unwanted and/or she's made to do it out of fear. 4) The story doesn't say that God threatened her or that she was scared of divine reprisal. 5) She had every right to say "Yes".... and "No". Once again... It's always idiots who don't actually know the story... It wasn't done, yet... She asks how it will happen and the angel tells her how it will happen...
Ok we can take the 'sex' out of it, but it's still God asking an underling to bear his child. What was she to have doine? Said no to God? And if she wasn't afraid, why would the angle have to say don't be afraid? And I didn't suggest rape in the case of the boss using his influence to "get" some underling to do his bidding...like bear his child.
[If we try to use the notion that everyone is compelled to do as he wishes, even if that is not scriptrally accurate, then we still would have to figure out why Mary was picked to be forced to do something against her will. Since she doesn’t really want to do it, then why not find someone who will? I mean there are women out there right now who would have a loser’s kid, surely there is at least one woman in those times that’s willing to have God’s kid. Is she just the best liar by saying she is honored to do it?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Nov 29, 2018 19:27:58 GMT
Ok we can take the 'sex' out of it, but it's still God asking an underling to bear his child. What was she to have doine? Said no to God? And if she wasn't afraid, why would the angle have to say don't be afraid? And I didn't suggest rape in the case of the boss using his influence to "get" some underling to do his bidding...like bear his child.
[If we try to use the notion that everyone is compelled to do as he wishes, even if that is not scriptrally accurate, then we still would have to figure out why Mary was picked to be forced to do something against her will. Since she doesn’t really want to do it, then why not find someone who will? I mean there are women out there right now who would have a loser’s kid, surely there is at least one woman in those times that’s willing to have God’s kid. Is she just the best liar by saying she is honored to do it? See my other post, I retracted the accusation/complaint. If folks want to believe a barely pubescent girl willingly allowed herself to become pregnant in the face of possibly being stoned (the real kind of stoning) then who am I to criticize?
But you raise an interesting point that I'd thought of before. What if God, in order to become a man and who couldn't figure out any other way to do it but to get a girl pregnant, actually DID have to approach countless girls...all virgins of course, before he found one willing to face the risk of being stoned because she showed up at her betrothed's door step pregnant?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 29, 2018 19:37:11 GMT
[If we try to use the notion that everyone is compelled to do as he wishes, even if that is not scriptrally accurate, then we still would have to figure out why Mary was picked to be forced to do something against her will. Since she doesn’t really want to do it, then why not find someone who will? I mean there are women out there right now who would have a loser’s kid, surely there is at least one woman in those times that’s willing to have God’s kid. Is she just the best liar by saying she is honored to do it? See my other post, I retracted the accusation/complaint. If folks want to believe a barely pubescent girl willingly allowed herself to become pregnant in the face of possibly being stoned (the real kind of stoning) then who am I to criticize?
But you raise an interesting point that I'd thought of before. What if God, in order to become a man and who couldn't figure out any other way to do it but to get a girl pregnant, actually DID have to approach countless girls...all virgins of course, before he found one willing to face the risk of being stoned because she showed up at her betrothed's door step pregnant? well the question was for the thread altogether since the notion is a stupid one. However there is no reason to think she was barely pubescent. All indications were she was of an adult age even if she were still possibly a teenager which we have no way of knowing. We do know that it is highly unlikely that she would marry someone at 13 simply on the basis that it wasn’t a common practice... anymore than it was normal for a 13 year old girl to be traveling the countryside by herself.
|
|