Did Mary, mother of God, give consent?

So... It really is true that the usual suspects can't get over themselves to discuss the aspects of the discussion at hand. They just have to ignore the points they have no answer for.

Knock yourselves out.

 

I am perfectly willing to do so....

When I see even a shred of anything besides speculation from someone, somewhere that Mary had a problem here.

Not one of you people in the "Mary was coerced" camp has provided anything besides your own opinions...and taking bias into account...well, you see the problem, don't you?

And I don't blindly follow anything...there is a reason I don't go to church.

 

Consider the source of the comment here that we should consider the source of the Bible... Why don't we consider the source and question the motives of the people here who started the thread? The Bible has been vetted far, far more thoroughly over thousands of years now and a couple of mostly anonymous posters on a sci-fi spinoff discussion board are questioning it with easily refuted points. :unconvinced:

 

You are free to question me and my motives. You seem reluctant to do the same with the bible.

 

"Because the Bible says so, QED," is not a proper logical proof.

 

You are incorrect. It's just that it's far easier to question you than it is to question something that is far more consistent and has stood the test of time so much better.

 

And yet, ultimately, that's all they've got.

Not ignoring you, just got sidetracked with other posters.

So, yeah, sorry about that immaculate conception thing. I forgot that was strictly a Catholic retcon. And the bit about the angel at the foot of the bed was a bit of poetic license on my part. All the original source says is that the angel "came in unto her," which probably just means she was indoors, but could have at least one other meaning, depending on how your mind works.

Anyway, iIf you'll go back and reread the entire thread, you'll see I'm not in the camp that uses the term "forced" or even "coerced." I'm thinking more along the lines of "an offer she couldn't refuse."

Let's look at her options: Go along with a decision that's been made without consulting her? Say, "Thanks, but no," and then what? The angel crosses her off the list and flutters over to the house next door, two millennia's worth of Christians refer to "Jahaziah, the Mother of God," and this Miriam chick dies in obscurity?

Given a still essentially Old Testament-vengeful God, that would be the least of her worries, one would think...

 

You want logical proof of how someone felt about being called upon by a supreme god to bear a child that would also be god and the salvation of all mankind. Are you out of your damned mind?

I'll say it once again. If you are to disregard what the Bible says on this matter and rely on what makes the most sense to you, then quit pretending to entertain the idea that there was a God involved in this at all. That is why I don't trust your motives (and Henry and garamet).

 

But it's still a "what if," Garamet. We have nothing but the Bible to refer to on whether or not Mary was consenting, even proud to bear Jesus, or not. As far as the Bible puts it, she was proud to do such a thing.

If you want to argue the "what if" scenerio, that's not that big a deal, but I think at this point you have to at least admit that that's what it is. From that point, we can at least enjoy speculating on the idea of it.

But we can't attach that to the only source of information we have on the subject, which points to the contrary.

 

Correct on all counts, which is why I do see it as merely speculative.

 

[action=Nocturne of Vladimir Jazz]starts singing "Age Of Aquarius."[/action]

 

There have to be some parameters to a discussion such as this. A reasonable set IMO includes that the basic events happened similarly to how they are described in the Bible, with some leeway.

Otherwise, there's endless speculation and one could hypothesize anything. "What if the angel that came to Mary was really a demon?" "What if Mary really aborted the divine child and Jesus was really the ordinary child of her and Joseph?" "What if Mary just was having a feverish delusion and imagined the angel?"

All those things could have happened, but there's little point IMO in having a discussion about them in terms of what it means for Christianity.

As I said, the Old Testament's got numerous people who argue with or defy or attempt to ignore God's wishes. True, most of them are men, but that's because most of the characters in the Old Testament are men. Sarah laughs to God's face when He tells her she's going to have a child (though she denies laughing). Now could a 12 or 13 year old girl be that bold? Maybe not generally.

As a point in "your" favor, presumably Mary knows about her cousin-in-law Zechariah who questioned whether her cousin was going to have a kid. Gabriel struck him dumb for the length of the pregnancy for asking a basic question: how is this going to happen because my wife is old. Mary could hypothetically have that in the back of her mind when she consents.

Here's the thing though: if we're going to take the premise of the Bible seriously, God doesn't need Mary's consent. It's in his power and authority to just do. That he took the time to explain anything to her seems pretty remarkable.

Of course, the explanation -- at least as given in the Bible -- is about all the glory and the ruling, and not about the pain and the suffering Jesus would go through.

 

Six of one, half-dozen of another. It's pretty clear that's what you meant, though...

And now you're saying it again. Really, now. You need to be able to stick with your convictions.

 

fixed it for you...

 

Nice In addition, Abraham had earlier laughed in response to a similar occurrence. Neither were punished but, obviously, they had been worried about the possibility. The fact that they weren't was obviously put in the Bible as a message to believers throughout time as a message.

 

Sigh...whatever. Point is, it's not a matter of life, death, or eternal salvation for me, just a mental exercise based on thinking of the Bible as a work of literature, no more nor less valid as an historical document than, say, The Iliad, and the savior-born-of-a-virgin story, in particular, as having roots in other religions.

Let me ask you a thought question: Supposing there is intelligent life on at least one other planet out there. Now, setting aside whether or not they're humanoid, what they breathe, what they eat, how they reproduce, etc....would their spiritual development require an Eden myth and a sacrificial savior? Or could they evolve and flourish and still be saved without all that?

 

Different thread...

 

If aliens existed that had a system of beliefs that closely mirrored Christianity (allowing for physical and environmental differences) wouldn't that say something about the universality of such belief systems that they could arise despite the lack of similarities to humanity?

 

Bah. If this thread continues in this direction, I think I'm going to expire myself from it.

Not that it hasn't been...interesting. But I'm not sure I could survive a new topic.

 

Yes, it would. But I think it's fair to assume it's far more likely that they'd have different myths entirely.

 

Yup.

 

I don't know why you would make that assumption.

Incidentally, there is far, far more evidence that the events recorded in the Bible occurred than there is evidence in favor of the existence of intelligent aliens.

 

Some of the events of the bible, you mean.

 

Evidence for some. No evidence that I'm currently aware of for others.

As for the evidence of intelligent alien life...

We have ZERO evidence. None. Nada. Nonexistent.

Yet many people (including myself) BELIEVE that intelligent aliens exist somewhere.

Now some will reason

"we have evidence of alien life existing because intelligent life exists on Earth. If it can exist here it must be capable of existing elsewhere"

That is not evidence. It is circular reasoning at best.

It differs not at all from people saying "Because the Bible says so."

And as RD admitted above, at least some of the parts of the Bible have been independently confirmed.

 

We can - or at least we could, if we were clever enough - analyse scientifically the probability of extra-terrestrial intelligent life, and get a finite answer.

Obviously no such logic can be applied to the existence of this supernatural "creator" that theists subscribe to, so discussion of It is irrelevant.

 

Longest troll-feeding thread in the history of an internet bulletin board.

 

Don't you love it?

 

Probability estimates are not evidence. At least on something like intelligent extraterrestrial life where massive non evidenciary assumptions are required.

But there are elements of the Bible that can be confirmed by other accounts.

The reign of Augustus. Approximately when he ordered the taxation of people in the area of Christs birth. The line of kings from the family of Herod that play such a major role in the gospels and Acts.

And I can't remember precisely, but IIRC there has been external evidence for massive famine in Egypt at the times the Israelites were supposedly living there.

 

It's a troll, but it's an interesting point.

Fear and willing consent are two different things, especially when authority figures are concerned. If Mary said yes out of fear of retribution rather than true desire to give birth to the son of God, it could be construed as rape. If this is the case, then rape cannot be intrinsically evil, since God committed it, and as God he cannot commit an evil act.

It's a pandora's box sort of question.

 

So Mary should have sued under sexual harassment laws?