mymistake Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 wow all this raping mary talk is getting me excited!!!!!! calm yourself down its only a book its only a book. This reminds me showing my wife that the bible doesn't care about rape. She was all like of course god thinks rape is wrong. Boy was she mistaken. Aside from never not once mentioning that rape is wrong it supports rape gee how nice no more objective bible god for her. now he is subjective bible god =D God impregnated a woman that belonged to a man, her betrothed Joseph. According to God's law then God should have been taken outside the village and hit with stones until God was dead. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rach Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Sorry this may be a stupid question but if the woman in that situation wanted to leave the man (after the month was up) would she be allowed to walk out or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenaissanceWoman Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Sounds like after the month was up, she had to submit to sex with her captor. If she didn't please him, he could get rid of her. So I guess if she wanted to escape, she had a month to think about how not to please him so he would let her go. I would assume no other choice than that, because she is now his property. Besides, she just witnessed the slaughter of her people, and would be concerned for the safety and well-being of her captive women folk, so she would be quite the mental basket case for that month (and indefinitely after that). And if she left, where would she go? No home to go to, no surviving family members except for the other women who are now owned, and surrounded by a foreign society who just brutally obliterated her own. Probably better to stay and work on her Stockholm syndrome with the other women of the house and neighborhood. Try not to think about it too hard. It's just a few verses in a book, but the larger picture is very disturbing. Thanks, Yahweh! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ crazyguy123 ◊ Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Sounds like after the month was up, she had to submit to sex with her captor. If she didn't please him, he could get rid of her. So I guess if she wanted to escape, she had a month to think about how not to please him so he would let her go. I would assume no other choice than that, because she is now his property. Besides, she just witnessed the slaughter of her people, and would be concerned for the safety and well-being of her captive women folk, so she would be quite the mental basket case for that month (and indefinitely after that). And if she left, where would she go? No home to go to, no surviving family members except for the other women who are now owned, and surrounded by a foreign society who just brutally obliterated her own. Probably better to stay and work on her Stockholm syndrome with the other women of the house and neighborhood. Try not to think about it too hard. It's just a few verses in a book, but the larger picture is very disturbing. Thanks, Yahweh! Good thing it's all myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rach Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Unfortunately I don't think it's just a myth. I think men (a long time ago) really did follow these instructions and believe they were doing nothing wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralet Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 Unfortunately I don't think it's just a myth. I think men (a long time ago) really did follow these instructions and believe they were doing nothing wrong. yes, but they have done it with or without the bible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipVanWinkle Posted June 19, 2013 Share Posted June 19, 2013 RenaissanceWoman: This is the first time I have disagreed with you. It did not indicated that the holy spirit had intercourse with Mary, but that he caused her to conceive. (I think that's the wording or something like it.)But I didn't get the impression that he injected seminal fluid into her vagina. Since that was god's will he could theoretically have implanted a fertilized egg on her uterine wall without any sexual act at all. I don't think this is a strong point to bring up to xtians. But, since it didn't happen anyway, the point is moot. bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoosier Posted June 19, 2013 Author Share Posted June 19, 2013 Whether by semen or a fertilized egg, that would still be nonconsensual impregnation, and therefore, rape. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenaissanceWoman Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Actually, Bill, we do not disagree. I agree it was not rape in the sense of penetration, but he did take over her body for his own purpose, miraculously fertilize the egg, and change her life forever with a child she was not expecting in this way -- all without asking first. She was supposedly a righteous and godly girl, so I guess technically she had a "relationship" with god beforehand, does that count? (He still could have asked first.) I think Hoosier said it well... "that would still be nonconsensual impregnation, and therefore, rape." All while she was betrothed to another man (Joseph's soon-to-be property). Think of the unnecessary family tension and shame that would have caused, for her to be pregnant before marriage. (But it was god, I swear!) It would have been nice if Gabriel had appeared to her whole family/village and said, yes, it was god, so leave her alone about it. If he had asked first, being a godly girl she would have said yes, I'm sure. (Otherwise it wouldn't be a good story.) And that one little act of courtesy would have gone a long way with me. (Well... sort of.) But no, he treated her like his property like all the other men did. I appreciate you pointing it out, however. Splitting hairs, but yes, god did not have sex with her in the traditional rape way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mydisplayname Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 God and Jesus is the same guy right? So technically Jesus impregnated his own mother so that he could be born. He is thus his own father as well as his own son. Mary is both his mother as well as his sons mother. My head hurts. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralet Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 God and Jesus is the same guy right? So technically Jesus impregnated his own mother so that he could be born. He is thus his own father as well as his own son. Mary is both his mother as well as his sons mother. My head hurts. and god created mary as well. so he made is mother and impregnated her. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoosier Posted June 21, 2013 Author Share Posted June 21, 2013 God and Jesus is the same guy right? So technically Jesus impregnated his own mother so that he could be born. He is thus his own father as well as his own son. Mary is both his mother as well as his sons mother. My head hurts. It all makes sense to me now, Jesus is John Connor, and the bible foretold the rise of SkyNet (the antichrist) thousands of years ago! Don't believe me? Jesus and James Cameron have the same initials! JC! And James Cameron has the same last name as gods chosen apologist Kirk Cameron! But on to serious business, does anyone with more knowledge on these matters know, were all cultures of this time period as bad as this? Or were the ancient Israelites some sort of barbaric horde? I mean did the Egyptians, Assyrians, Etc. practice this same kind of behavior or does archaeological evidence indicate that they were more civilized? I've not read too much about them except from the obviously biased slant of the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rach Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 I have had this scripture passage in my head for days now comparing it to the fairy tale "beauty and the beast" (I love that movie by the way). The scripture passage being a darker take on the whole captive bride story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mydisplayname Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 I guess god didn't rape mary after all. He just took credit for it. (Can't wait for this movie!) http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/06/25/movie-jesus-conceived-after-mary-raped-by-roman-soldier/ LAS VEGAS (CBS Las Vegas) — A controversial film about the conception of Jesus Christ is in the works. Paul Verhoeven – who wrote “Jesus of Nazareth” – will direct the project which will show that Jesus is not the son of God and was conceived after Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts