Religion Was the "Virgin" Mary unfaithful ?

[strongvoicesforward]

Did Bible God commit adultery or have pre-marital sex by impregnating Mary? Should He have been stoned for such an act?

"Errrr...honey, Joseph, I didn`t cheat on you and have sex with the Roman soldiers. Yes, I know. The baby can't be yours because we haven`t 'done it' yet, but....

No, Joe, Joe, listen to me -- put down that stone. Ok, baby, here is what happened....

Errrrr... I had a dream... eerrrr yeah yeah... that`s what happened... I had a dream and... errrr eerrrr... in this dream errrr... a ghost... errr I mean a holy Ghost... well, let`s just say he was God, came and told me... he wanted me to have his son. Now Joe, baby... who am I to refuse to do what the Roman sold ... errrr I mean God told me to do...? Yea. That`s right. It happened during a dream."

Oh Joe. You never know the trouble you would have had saved the world had you just thrown that stone.

---------------------------------------------
* Please, no one get riled up over this satire like the Muslims with cartoons. It is all satire. Besides... it is all fiction and no stones were actually hurt in the creation of it. Thank Gawd!

 

[Maciamo]

Did Bible God commit adultery or have pre-marital sex by impregnating Mary? Should He have been stoned for such an act?
"Errrr...honey, Joseph, I didn`t cheat on you and have sex with the Roman soldiers. Yes, I know. The baby can't be yours because we haven`t 'done it' yet, but....
No, Joe, Joe, listen to me -- put down that stone. Ok, baby, here is what happened....
Errrrr... I had a dream... eerrrr yeah yeah... that`s what happened... I had a dream and... errrr eerrrr... in this dream errrr... a ghost... errr I mean a holy Ghost... well, let`s just say he was God, came and told me... he wanted me to have his son. Now Joe, baby... who am I to refuse to do what the Roman sold ... errrr I mean God told me to do...? Yea. That`s right. It happened during a dream."
Oh Joe. You never know the trouble you would have had saved the world had you just thrown that stone.
---------------------------------------------
* Please, no one get riled up over this satire like the Muslims with cartoons. It is all satire. Besides... it is all fiction and no stones were actually hurt in the creation of it. Thank Gawd!

That seems like a fairly likely explanation to the "natural birth of Jesus". I guess that there has been millions of girls/women who have tried to explain their extra-marital pregnancy with similar stories.:blush:

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I don't find that 'satire' funny or clever. I find it unnecessarily provocative and in bad taste. I think it's more constructive to stick to rational argument.

Edit: Note: This is an opinion, not a statement about what should or shouldn't be allowed.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't find that 'satire' funny or clever. I find it unnecessarily provocative and in bad taste. I think it's more constructive to stick to rational argument.

Well, some do find it so. The poster above you did and I have even gotten a PM telling me they thought it was humorous.

Wit and humor are often employed within discussions and debates.

Whether one finds it provocative or in bad taste is based on subjectivity and their own perspective. That does not mean it should not be put forth in a forum meant for discussion. You wouldn`t suggest that all discussions not employ wit from time to time, would you? You wouldn`t suggest that all "wit" has to be the same as yours for appreciation, would you?

I don`t think newspapers should have to not run cartoons satarizing things out of fear their country's embassies are going to be mobbed and burned. Ideas should flow and those on the receiving end should learn to accept freedom of speech even though it may offend their sensitivities.

I just watched the Family Man (title?) on TV and it was quite funny. Poked a lot of fun at Christians and I could very well see that it could be offensive. Especially when Mel Gibson walks off Mt. Rushmore falling to his supposed death and the response was:

Wife: I can`t believe he just walked off the cliff like that.
Husband: Of course he did. Christians don`t believe in gravity.

and many more little jabs.

People need to get over their own precious little perceptions of insults when it comes to things meant as humor. There are just too many of us to say that each of us can stake out our own little sacred cows and expect that no one violate them. They all should be violated if someone wishes to do so and the only thing I would never cross the line is employing expletives. Harsh humor can be employed creatively without expletives. However, if you have ever seen a black comic go off on the hood or talking about peoples' mamas, you would think what I wrote above about Mary was rather tame. Humor exists and that existance is not and should never be decided as right or wrong merely because a segment of the population is offended.

As for JREF forum, the audience I would imagine is quite broad. Let the onlookers make up their own mind about it. I am sure there are many lurkers who never post.

 

[PRIZMATIC]

:blush: ...As "it is not strange", but the lifted question on the one who " the first the man " Maria - is serious enough and for "believing" people...
If Maria has conceived from "God" - that she has unfaithfulness... And it so... Even if she has conceived from "Spirit"...
Excuse, but this infringement of " the rights of the official husband " Maria...
Christians, not find decisions in a question of presence at this or that person, in this case - husband Maria, " Will of the Sky " - " correction a kind " at a level of those or other changes in genetics - have preferred it to make programs " an abstract theme " - type: " if you believe, that the God has created the World " for six days...you will believe and in it...
I for rehabilitation the rights of father Jesus Christ who has conceived his body!... The Spirit of this body has been put The god... It was similar and with Seth (Genesis, chapter 4, a verse 25). Only after that, it is considered, that the God (!) has taken part in creation ?@dam and ?Eva (Genesis, chapter 5, verses 1-3).....:angel:

 

[Mycernius]

Just to point out it is not only the Christians that believe that Mary was a virgin. Muslims do as well.
From Sura 3:40
"She said, "How, my Lord! shall I have a son, when man hath not touched me?" He said, "Thus: God will create what he will; When he decreeth a thing, He only saith "be," and it is"
No holy spirit involved in this. God is supposed to be omnipotent, it can do what it wants, including the creation of life, just by saying "Be"

 

[Kinsao]

Well, if you believe in the existence of God, it's perfectly feasible to believe that he could impregnate a woman in some way not involving 'sex' as we know it.

If you don't believe in God, the virgin birth is of course impossible (or should I say scientifically, nearly impossible, because there have been rarely occasions on which a human egg cell has begun the process of division without being fertilised. So we can say, only a very outside chance... I believe this has only occurred in lab conditions but unfortunately I've forgotten my source :sorry: ).

As I believe in the existence of God, I believe that it is possible for a 'virgin' (in the sense we mean the word ^^) to become pregnant. (Whether this was what happened in the case of Mary, I will never know, as I can't go back in time and actually see what happened.) However, I have no problem with people who don't believe in God, thinking that the whole thing is so vastly improbably as to be highly unlikely.

However, can I also add, that thinking rationally, it is always a good idea to keep an open mind, because science hasn't yet found all the answers (think of 200 years ago people thought their knowledge was good, yet now we know of all the gaps), and it's always possible that one day, say 500 years from now, some scientist might be able to stand up and say "of course! That's how it happened! There could be a perfectly valid scientific explanation, only people didn't understand it and called it 'divine'".

 

[PRIZMATIC]

:blush: To trust is possible in many... But I about a question of " the right of the first night "... If the God has impregnated Maria he became her husband?... And whether she in a consequence with Joseph breaks ten precepts?... Or everything is possible for the God, what it is impossible for people?... In fact for similar "sins" to people refuse in "kingdom of heaven"... I can present some more "impartial" examples on this theme, but from it the essence of a question strongly will not change...
If be Maria has conceived from the God, and then Joseph, has taken her in the wife doubts would not be questions,only to God(?...)... But in fact was differently - so it written in all certificates...:angel:

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Just to point out it is not only the Christians that believe that Mary was a virgin. Muslims do as well.

Yes. Both superstitions are kidding themselves.

A second person backing up the absurdity of what a first person says does not make it more true than if he had never backed it up. It either is true or not, and the truth of it is independent of those who profess it or reject it.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

If you don't believe in God, the virgin birth is of course impossible (or should I say scientifically, nearly impossible, because there have been rarely occasions on which a human egg cell has begun the process of division without being fertilised. So we can say, only a very outside chance... I believe this has only occurred in lab conditions but unfortunately I've forgotten my source

Yes, a source would be nice.

But, even if an egg were to start division and resulted in a fetus, don`t forget the X and Y. A fetus resulting from an egg cell only would only be female.

So, in that case maybe He, Jesus, was in fact a She.

Personally, I don`t think Xtians will "tolerate" or entertain that thought seriously.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

However, can I also add, that thinking rationally, it is always a good idea to keep an open mind, because science hasn't yet found all the answers (think of 200 years ago people thought their knowledge was good, yet now we know of all the gaps), and it's always possible that one day, say 500 years from now, some scientist might be able to stand up and say "of course! That's how it happened! There could be a perfectly valid scientific explanation, only people didn't understand it and called it 'divine'".

"Keeping the doors open" to possibilities and explanations is fine if they don`t border on "absurdity." There is no reason to keep the door of "absurdity" open. If that "absurdity" does in fact exist, then it will knock down the door when it is ready to. Until then, leaving it closed could allow for other doors of possibilities -- not ones of "absurdity" -- that do exist to be targets of our interests and recourses.

Should we keep open the possibility that Santa does exist somewhere in the vicinity of the North Pole? I doubt that every nook and cranny of the North has been probed. He could be cleverly hidden up there amongst ice flows or in Alaskan, Siberian, or Canadian glaciers.

 

[Sensuikan San]

Should we keep open the possibility that Santa does exist somewhere in the vicinity of the North Pole? I doubt that every nook and cranny of the North has been probed. He could be cleverly hidden up there amongst ice flows or in Alaskan, Siberian, or Canadian glaciers.

Rest assured ...

With global warming proceeding at the rate it seems to be right now, the truth will surely out.

?W????

 

[bossel]

There could be a perfectly valid scientific explanation, only people didn't understand it and called it 'divine'".

Actually, you don't need to wait 500 years. AFAIK, it's possible to get pregnant without losing virginity. Penetration is not needed to get pregnant, a drop of sperm entering the vagina could suffice.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Yes. Both superstitions are kidding themselves.
A second person backing up the absurdity of what a first person says does not make it more true than if he had never backed it up. It either is true or not, and the truth of it is independent of those who profess it or reject it.

....."sigh".....
Yes your opening post in this thread was moderatly amusing, congrats.

Maybe you are in denial though? What i mean to say is, you seem to not be able to accept in your own mind, that people who may not agree with your opinions have justified reasons to do so. Part of being a good debater is being actually able to see things from the other persons point on view, and you do not seem to be able to justify another persons point of view when you try to see things from their view point, and why certain things you say can be offensive to some.
Not that im religeous or anything, just wanted to say, that at least i can see you are being offensive to numerous religeons and i believe you know it, but are not able to accept the consequences perhaps. Just because you intend somthing as pure humour, does mean it will be received that way.
Just out of curiosity, was this intended as pure humour, or did you have a point some where in this? I honestly want to know.
Sorry if i am blabbering on, i need some tea :blush: .

 

[Mars Man]

I'll take a stand on the nature and intent behind this thread along with Tsuyoiko

I STRONGLY reason, and feel, that due to the fact that we here are in the SERIOUS discussion area, and are at this very location discussing religion or matters of religion, we should of course do so in an effort to be more serious in tone than not.

Can it be said, that there may be evidence for 'trollful' mischief herein? Questions posed from accounts ascribed as historical events which the questioner denies to be truely historical events in the first place, with no effort whatsoever to answer or set up the discussion of or on those same questions? Would not any concern about the reaction of much of Islam on freedom or expression/speech be best posted on the thread more closely related to that? If the effort is to supply us with humor,again, would it not be best placed in the sub-forum dealing with humor; just like the 'Join my cult' matter? I most certainly hope, with whatever value and credit any hopes of mine might be given by those on this forum, that a democratic process will take the nature and intent in this thread to court, that we may come to know if it is an honest attempt to discuss some religious matter in a serious manner, or not !

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Yeah, i have to agree with Mars Man when it comes down to it, given that this is the serious discussion area of the forum and strongvoicesforward has posted some potentially very insulting comments directed at certain religeons. Not cool, not clever.

 

[Maciamo]

Actually, you don't need to wait 500 years. AFAIK, it's possible to get pregnant without losing virginity. Penetration is not needed to get pregnant, a drop of sperm entering the vagina could suffice.

Indeed. Now that you mention it, sperm spilled in water (bath, river ?) could have entered the vagina when Mary was bathing. In any case the "divine" explanation is clearly a convenient way to explain things when one wants to establish a religion.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Indeed. Now that you mention it, sperm spilled in water (bath, river ?) could have entered the vagina when Mary was bathing. In any case the "divine" explanation is clearly a convenient way to explain things when one wants to establish a religion.

Clearly then, it is possible to discuss this topic in a sensible, respectful manner, without resorting to ridicule. There are clearly perfectly rational explanations as to why a woman may claim to be a pregnant virgin, without the totally unfounded claims that she was a liar or otherwise of questionable morals.

 

[Kinsao]

"Keeping the doors open" to possibilities and explanations is fine if they don`t border on "absurdity." There is no reason to keep the door of "absurdity" open.

Well, people used to think it was absurd to believe the earth was round.

I'm just trying to say, that we don't know everything, even in scientific ways.

 

[Mars Man]

Clearly then, it is possible to discuss this topic in a sensible, respectful manner, without resorting to ridicule. There are clearly perfectly rational explanations as to why a woman may claim to be a pregnant virgin, without the totally unfounded claims that she was a liar or otherwise of questionable morals.

In hopes that this thread can clearly maintain the properness of the sub-forum that it is in, as Maciamo san has lead us in, and Tsuyoiko has dittoed, I would lay out the following:

There is the chance that the story was developed from misunderstanding of the Hebrew term by some early Christians who, as is understood by the leading voices of scholarship in that area, were 90% illiterate anyway. There is evidence in some copies of LXX (Septuagent) showing what really appears most evidently to be purposefully made changes in words, so that the Greek word 'virgin' would be read in the Greek rather than 'young woman'--as the Hebrew read.

How it would spread to eventually be included in the Gospel narratives, and in Christian dogma as a whole, is anyone's guess, it seems. But I really doubt that such a story would have been unusual in the literature of that day, as there are some other examples of such stories--which I would have to re-locate, though.

As such, I don't really think it would make much of an theological discussion, but it would be good for a philosophical one.