Virgin Mary

[alexdocherty]

If the story of virgin Mary baring God's child is true: is it really ethical that God gave her a baby, without her consent?
Just wanted to see some people's thoughts on this...

[Baphomet]

Sorry, but the bible is not a legitimate resource. It's circular logic, despite what you may or may not believe, and that is not condusive to a debate. "The Bible is true because the Bible says its true" and around and around we go.
That said, from a Satanic and historical perspective, Mary had little choice. In her view, God created her, and if he is displeased with her she goes to hell, so its the gun to the head philosophy. "You have my baby or go to hell and I find another chick" sort of attitude.
If Mary made UP the story of how the angel approached her, and she really had slept with another man and became pregnant, then God's divine will would be the only thing saving her from a trip to her father's door (where he would be obligated by law to stone her to death). If Joseph tried to make her say she was lying and was carrying another man's child, then he risked death himself for slandering someone who apparently had a vision of God.

Warning: Things get a little medical ahead. Handle it with maturity, please.

Another thing. Mary was most likely not a virgin. People back then measured virginity by rupture of the membrane partially covering the cervix. It was assumed that any man penetrating a woman would have to rupture this membrane to have intercourse. This isn't true. The membrane is some cases stretches to allow a penis to enter. Thus, by inspection, a woman in this case would still be pronounced a virgin.
Now if a pregnancy resulted from sex where the membrane DID stretch...MIRACLE! A pregnant virgin! There's no possible explaination for it....so God must have done it! Thus through the next thousand years she is revered as a miracle child. Blame medical ignorance for that one. People didn't really have an extensive knowledge of the female sex back then (as post mortem examination of human remains was forbidden by the Pharisees).

[Baphomet]

Sorry, but the bible is not a legitimate resource. It's circular logic, despite what you may or may not believe, and that is not condusive to a debate. "The Bible is true because the Bible says its true" and around and around we go.
That said, from a Satanic and historical perspective, Mary had little choice. In her view, God created her, and if he is displeased with her she goes to hell, so its the gun to the head philosophy. "You have my baby or go to hell and I find another chick" sort of attitude.
If Mary made UP the story of how the angel approached her, and she really had slept with another man and became pregnant, then God's divine will would be the only thing saving her from a trip to her father's door (where he would be obligated by law to stone her to death). If Joseph tried to make her say she was lying and was carrying another man's child, then he risked death himself for slandering someone who apparently had a vision of God.

Warning: Things get a little medical ahead. Handle it with maturity, please.

Another thing. Mary was most likely not a virgin. People back then measured virginity by rupture of the membrane partially covering the cervix. It was assumed that any man penetrating a woman would have to rupture this membrane to have intercourse. This isn't true. The membrane is some cases stretches to allow a p.enis to enter. Thus, by inspection, a woman in this case would still be pronounced a virgin.
Now if a pregnancy resulted from sex where the membrane DID stretch...MIRACLE! A pregnant virgin! There's no possible explaination for it....so God must have done it! Thus through the next thousand years she is revered as a miracle child. Blame medical ignorance for that one. People didn't really have an extensive knowledge of the female sex back then (as post mortem examination of human remains was forbidden by the Pharisees).

[alexdocherty]

Sorry, but the bible is not a legitimate resource. It's circular logic, despite what you may or may not believe, and that is not condusive to a debate. "The Bible is true because the Bible says its true" and around and around we go.
That said, from a Satanic and historical perspective, Mary had little choice. In her view, God created her, and if he is displeased with her she goes to hell, so its the gun to the head philosophy. "You have my baby or go to hell and I find another chick" sort of attitude.
If Mary made UP the story of how the angel approached her, and she really had slept with another man and became pregnant, then God's divine will would be the only thing saving her from a trip to her father's door (where he would be obligated by law to stone her to death). If Joseph tried to make her say she was lying and was carrying another man's child, then he risked death himself for slandering someone who apparently had a vision of God.

Warning: Things get a little medical ahead. Handle it with maturity, please.

Another thing. Mary was most likely not a virgin. People back then measured virginity by rupture of the membrane partially covering the cervix. It was assumed that any man penetrating a woman would have to rupture this membrane to have intercourse. This isn't true. The membrane is some cases stretches to allow a p.enis to enter. Thus, by inspection, a woman in this case would still be pronounced a virgin.
Now if a pregnancy resulted from sex where the membrane DID stretch...MIRACLE! A pregnant virgin! There's no possible explaination for it....so God must have done it! Thus through the next thousand years she is revered as a miracle child. Blame medical ignorance for that one. People didn't really have an extensive knowledge of the female sex back then (as post mortem examination of human remains was forbidden by the Pharisees).

This is the kind of response I was looking for, someone whose mind is open to the fact that the Bible isn't reliable.
Very interesting thoughts.

[Goat]

Why do you consider it the infallible word of God? WHy are there so many contradictions? Why are there so many historical inaccuracies? Why are there so many different Christian interpretations over the same passages?

Because I believe it to be the sure and firm foundation it claims to be.
There are ' seeming ' contradictions but maybe man is not reading into the exact situation as was at the time.
Historical inaccuracies ? We must remember the Bible to be more of a spiritual book than falling in with what man considers important but does in fact distract from God.
Evry traditional christian interpretation is wrong since they are out of step with the word and the commandments in particular.

No, there are quite some blaring contradictions. WHen you have two discriptions of the same event, and they are mutually exclusive, it is a contradiction.

For example, the two stories about how Judas died are mutually exclusive.

The genology of Jesus and Luke are mutually exclusive.

The stories that are created to resolved these contradictions are strained, and show the weakness of the persons faith.

[s0ren]

Sorry, but the bible is not a legitimate resource. It's circular logic, despite what you may or may not believe, and that is not condusive to a debate. "The Bible is true because the Bible says its true" and around and around we go.
That said, from a Satanic and historical perspective, Mary had little choice. In her view, God created her, and if he is displeased with her she goes to hell, so its the gun to the head philosophy. "You have my baby or go to hell and I find another chick" sort of attitude.
If Mary made UP the story of how the angel approached her, and she really had slept with another man and became pregnant, then God's divine will would be the only thing saving her from a trip to her father's door (where he would be obligated by law to stone her to death). If Joseph tried to make her say she was lying and was carrying another man's child, then he risked death himself for slandering someone who apparently had a vision of God.

Warning: Things get a little medical ahead. Handle it with maturity, please.

Another thing. Mary was most likely not a virgin. People back then measured virginity by rupture of the membrane partially covering the cervix. It was assumed that any man penetrating a woman would have to rupture this membrane to have intercourse. This isn't true. The membrane is some cases stretches to allow a p.enis to enter. Thus, by inspection, a woman in this case would still be pronounced a virgin.
Now if a pregnancy resulted from sex where the membrane DID stretch...MIRACLE! A pregnant virgin! There's no possible explaination for it....so God must have done it! Thus through the next thousand years she is revered as a miracle child. Blame medical ignorance for that one. People didn't really have an extensive knowledge of the female sex back then (as post mortem examination of human remains was forbidden by the Pharisees).

I would count it just as beautiful and perfect if God's son came from an illegitimate birth. That would be right in line with all of Jesus' teachings. Do I think it was a miracle rather than illegitimate child? I choose to believe so. Either/Or it doesn't affect my view of Christ.

[alexdocherty]

Sorry, but the bible is not a legitimate resource. It's circular logic, despite what you may or may not believe, and that is not condusive to a debate. "The Bible is true because the Bible says its true" and around and around we go.
That said, from a Satanic and historical perspective, Mary had little choice. In her view, God created her, and if he is displeased with her she goes to hell, so its the gun to the head philosophy. "You have my baby or go to hell and I find another chick" sort of attitude.
If Mary made UP the story of how the angel approached her, and she really had slept with another man and became pregnant, then God's divine will would be the only thing saving her from a trip to her father's door (where he would be obligated by law to stone her to death). If Joseph tried to make her say she was lying and was carrying another man's child, then he risked death himself for slandering someone who apparently had a vision of God.

Warning: Things get a little medical ahead. Handle it with maturity, please.

Another thing. Mary was most likely not a virgin. People back then measured virginity by rupture of the membrane partially covering the cervix. It was assumed that any man penetrating a woman would have to rupture this membrane to have intercourse. This isn't true. The membrane is some cases stretches to allow a p.enis to enter. Thus, by inspection, a woman in this case would still be pronounced a virgin.
Now if a pregnancy resulted from sex where the membrane DID stretch...MIRACLE! A pregnant virgin! There's no possible explaination for it....so God must have done it! Thus through the next thousand years she is revered as a miracle child. Blame medical ignorance for that one. People didn't really have an extensive knowledge of the female sex back then (as post mortem examination of human remains was forbidden by the Pharisees).

I would count it just as beautiful and perfect if God's son came from an illegitimate birth. That would be right in line with all of Jesus' teachings. Do I think it was a miracle rather than illegitimate child? I choose to believe so. Either/Or it doesn't affect my view of Christ.

I'd question whether my God was as loving as I thought if he pressured a woman into giving birth.

[Greatest I Am]

God looked down on all the animals of the earth and said let us send the angels to fornicate with man and if they reproduce I will flood them off the earth and then go down myself and try out a human. Bestiality must be seen as good if God is allowed to cross breed.

Regards
DL

[realthinker]

Why do you consider it the infallible word of God? WHy are there so many contradictions? Why are there so many historical inaccuracies? Why are there so many different Christian interpretations over the same passages?

Because I believe it to be the sure and firm foundation it claims to be.
There are ' seeming ' contradictions but maybe man is not reading into the exact situation as was at the time.
Historical inaccuracies ? We must remember the Bible to be more of a spiritual book than falling in with what man considers important but does in fact distract from God.
Evry traditional christian interpretation is wrong since they are out of step with the word and the commandments in particular.

Are you the next prophet that will tell us how every traditional Christian interpretation should be corrected? How did you get such divine wisdom?

[Ilias Ahmad]

If God making Mary pregnant without her consent is "divine rape", than God making you or me sick (without our consent) is "divine biological warfare?". It's a slippery slope.

You cannot hold God to the same standard as man. God is the standard.

[Greatest I Am]

If God making Mary pregnant without her consent is "divine rape", than God making you or me sick (without our consent) is "divine biological warfare?". It's a slippery slope.

You cannot hold God to the same standard as man. God is the standard.

God's standards are created by man.
God does not speak and cannot set these.
God is in our immage yes, but we control the immage.

As to God and Mary; God had shown His disapproval of angels fornicating with women by sending a flood.

Why then would actions not approved for angels sudenly is OK for God?

God does not cross bread. He does not fornicate with lower animals.
Jesus was a great Rabbi and prophet but a whole man. There is nothing divine on this earth.

Bestiality is not one ofGod's attributes.

Regards
DL