Posted on 12/22/2014 12:01:18 PM PST by C19fan
Which fantasy is the opposite extreme of the atheists scorn of that which is holy. Just where in Scripture do you see Mary as being some almost almighty Queen of Heaven, upon whom all the angelical host awaits to serve, and the devils tremble at her gaze, and who like God can hear virtually infinite streams of supplication?
The issue is whether this was rape or not, and thus whether Mary's assent was implicit even before being told and expressing it, which is manifestly the case. She counted herself exceedingly blessed, not victimized, thus no rape was involved.
If an angel came up to me and said, I am sending a man to you today with 10 million dollars which will be deposited into your bank account today, and which will grow to an ever greater sum by which to further the work of the kingdom of God,
and to which i then said, "the Lord's will be done," then I would hardly consider myself a victim, seeing as that would be a blessing to me.
But to angry atheists, rationality must too often give place to animosity.
Going deeper into what occurred Christ was created within her in human form but Christ existed in Spirit before the foundations of the earth were formed. The wisest of the wise can not understand fully the hows of Christ birth anymore than we can grasp how GOD created the heavens and the earth. But rather we accept it in faith as being such.
I'm curious have any of the gods in mythology created life itself? GOD created life, man, and woman from man.
How could her assent be implied before she was aware of it?
And, it is in keeping with the article that she was happy about it.
In Adult Sunday School the other week the preacher was talking about “Atonement” - the cruxifiction of Christ. As an aside he mentioned something about the modernist’s view that God was the ultimate child abuser. I was like “What! Can you explain that a bit more?” He did. I guess it goes along with Him being a rapist as well.
Luke’s Mary assents after being not asked but told by a powerful supernatural being what is going to happen to her, “Behold the bond slave of the Lord: be it done to me . . .”)
I’m no Biblical scholar - but I’m guessing that she was faithful in everything - and had trust in God. Like Abraham - didn’t ask a bunch of questions about where he would go, but would follow God regardless.
So she had already assented to God - even before the angels visited her. And that is confirmed by her attitude (”I am blessed, etc.”)
Unlike me, that only looks back on some events that may not seem so great at the time (like a bastard child might be) but later realize it was a God thing.
That seems to be the attitude the article is describing as well.
How? Because being a mother, and that of it the Son of the Highest, who would sit in the throne of his father David, was something she found most desirous in the light of her response. Indeed, it is reasonable to say that every pious devout Jewish girl prayed to be the mother of this Messiah, which certainly implies consent when told.
And notice how much this story parallels that of Hannah in 1Sam. 1,2, including her own "magnificant." The question is how in the world can this be construed as not having consent, and as rape?!
In contrast is something like Peter being told "slay and eat" unclean animals, and his protest, "Not so, Lord." (Acts 10:13,14)
Which again portrays their ignorance, as if Christ had not consented to this:
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (John 10:18)
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)
If someone enlists in the Marines, understanding this could mean he may have to lay down his life for his country, then it can hardly be considered abuse when he dies on Iwo Jima.
But atheists also charge the Lord Jesus with theft by telling his disciples to find a certain donkey in a certain village upon which no man ever rode, and that if anyone asked, they were to say "The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them." (Matthew 21:3)
And which case it is obvious the Lord knew the owner and that he would assent to this. "If you ever need a donkey or anything, come by and get it" would be a reasonable and sufficient for arrangement. If it was theft they certainly would not have assented. But yet these atheists are so desperate for a conviction (in order to justify themselves as morally superior, even though they have no universal supremer standard) that they engage in such un-reasonable assertions, and are willing to risk having their inane foolishness exposed, as it has been.
No, as instead the polemic is that Mary did not see this as desirous and was compelled to assent, but which is not the case, as not only would becoming the mother of the Messiah be a dream come true for such a Hebrew women, and which the parallel to the story of Hannah supports, but she could have protested like Peter did when told to eat unclean animals in Acts 10.
"Underneath this remarkably enduring and widespread trope lie two assumptions that, in their most primitive form, may trace their roots all the way back to evolutionary biology."
To quote Seinfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
Even assuming for a moment that the writer had her facts straight (she does not) her conclusion that because nowhere in the Bible, either Old Testament or New, does any writer say that a woman’s consent is necessary or even desirable before sex, that this falsely alleged "omission is more than regrettable, it is tragic".
On her atheist premise there is no "proper order of things" in the first place, so what is there to violate? There is nothing "tragic" or "regrettable" in random evolutionary biological events. How could something happen in evolutionary biology that is not supposed to happen or is not good? How does she get "tragedy" out of a bunch of atoms banging around?
Her screed is incoherent on it's face.
Cordially,
If you ONLY look at THAT statement; perhaps.
"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
The angel TOLD her what WAS going to happen.
Not once is there any indication Mary had any 'choice' in the matter.
More wresting from the unlearned, as
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
But despite trying to sign in on another browser thru Google+ to comment on Salon, it still will not let me, but it works on other sites.
Mary did have a choice, made long ago, to be in a covenant relationship with God, trusting Him to do what is best, and to be have Him work in you and thru you is not abuse, while as expressed above, becoming the mother of the Messiah would be a dream come true for such a Hebrew women, and which [her response and] the parallel to the story of Hannah supports, while she could have protested like Peter did when told to eat unclean animals in Acts 10.
Thus the charge of God engaging in rape, impregnating a sex slave is absurd, but so are multitide other charges of angry and or elitist atheists.
Rather, while God could impregnate her against her will, or without even telling her, it is obvious God prepared her as one who would want to be the earthly mother of the heavenly Messiah, God manifest in the flesh.
And thus there never was a question as to her formal consent, which was implied before hand by her entering into covenant with God (who alone is worthy of unconditional consent), and which was as an answered prayer.
But it is atheists who essential try to rape God by demanding He submits to them by showing Himself to them by performing explicit miracles on demand, as if He that would effect obedient faith (the Israelites under Moses saw such, by often practically acted as atheists), and as if God needs their worship, versus that being what is right and is best for man.
Divine Truth is like a veiled women: a basic revelation is manifest, which is to bring souls to seek Him, for in seeking the heart is prepared for efficacious receiving. And to such as do so will God show Him glory, but those who demand God perform tricks will realize to late that the God is real, in Hell!
The good news is that i finally got signed into Salon using Pale Moon (as peacebyjesus), which browser it seems i first used weeks ago. I guess it does not like more than one browser being used. Now watch for the fireworks of atheists insisting God was a rapist or the like, like as Hitler was a Christ, etc.
I want to know why it is so intrinsic to the oligopolies of International Socialism, particularly the kind that involves young boys.
Cordailly,
>>I like how liberals think Jesus and Mary are fictional characters, and yet they have information about them not found in the Bible. “Jesus was gay! Mary was raped!” Maybe it’s in the super secret King Brock Bible only passed out to social workers and organizers.<<
Good point. For some reason atheists are so worried and worked up over entities they “believe” don’t exist. One could conclude such emotion admits a belief in God’s existence and they just don’t like what He has to say.
These are the same atheists and skeptics who believe BHO was/is qualified to be president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.