 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mary, consent, and other issues
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On one level, speculating whether it was an 'abuse of power' on God's part strikes me as odd in a similar way to the misgivings about RC poetic outpourings about the purity of Mary's womb or Protestant waxings lyrical about Mary and Joseph's sex life.
.
I strongly reject any argument (not that you are necessarily making one) that because God is the source of morality (and everything), God is always acting morally even when He does something that would be immoral for a human to do. So even if our attempts to analyze God based on our understanding of human behavior are destined to fail, that does not mean that they are not useful.
Basically, God decided to put another living being inside a woman and sent an angel to tell her how happy and unafraid she should be about it before she even had a chance to offer consent. If a human being had done that, even allowing for the cultural differences between then and now, it would look like a dick move.
(Tangent: Did Gabriel come to announce that Mary was already pregnant or did Mary not conceive until she had said "Be it done unto me according to thy word"?)
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
"In the charming story of “the Annunciation” the angel Gabriel appears to the terrified young girl, announcing that she has been chosen to become the mother of god. Her response to this sudden proposal from the godfather is totaled nonresistance: “Let it be done unto me according to thy word”. Physical rape is not necessary when the mind/will/spirit has already been invaded".
Before she said, "Let it be done...", she said, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" She did not unthinkingly accept Gabriel's message. She considered it in the light of her own knowledge.
Gabriel told her that she had found favor with God, and this is why she had been chosen. I think she could have refused. She chose to accept.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I strongly reject any argument (not that you are necessarily making one) that because God is the source of morality (and everything), God is always acting morally even when He does something that would be immoral for a human to do. So even if our attempts to analyze God based on our understanding of human behavior are destined to fail, that does not mean that they are not useful.
One can turn that argument around and say that since God always acts morally any interpretation of the Bible that has God not act morally must be wrong. That would be a reason for thinking that Mary would not have conceived had she not consented. In this case, since Christian tradition has it that Mary's consent was praiseworthy and required for human salvation we aren't even trying to revise the tradition in line with modern sensibilities. Consenting is just exactly what the traditional interpretation has it that she did.
(I think there is some sense in arguing that morality as we understand it only really applies to beings with bodies and social systems comparable to ours. But that's not relevant when we image God as a being who communicates with us and is therefore part of our social system.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Is it really an offer she could refuse?
Forgive me file being direct and perhaps earthily profane now. What does the purity of her womb have to do With anything? And that her vagina only saw the birth of Jesus? Would prior of subsequent intercourse have degraded it and thus her? Is sex thus bad? Was Joseph, unlike Moses near the end of Deuteronomy (34:7) unable to have sex, did he become so God-stricken like Mary he too went celibate?
"And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. "
Is it misreading to think "natural force" means he could still perform in bed (as James Michener has characters discuss in The Source, a novel).
I wonder who recorded the conversation so see could discuss the conversation she had with the angel.
[ 10. November 2017, 22:46: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I5 does seem that someone is denying the Virgin Conception.
There is nothing in the Bible that states Joseph was an older male. All we can assume is that Joseph may have died sometime before Jesus began his ministry because the Gospels say Mary and Jesus's brothers tried to intervene when they thought he was going off the deep end.
We also have to remember that the average lifespan was quite short compared to modern lifespan--yes this is largely due to a very high rate of infant mortality.
Adolescence is a relatively new stage of life with the development of the industrial age and the educational system. That said, I agree that neurologically speaking a young teenager's brain is not sufficiently developed to be able to make informed consent. However, we cannot impose our modern insights on an ancient culture.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is it really an offer she could refuse?
And that's the central question. It's exactly the same question for the waitress whose boss backs her into the stockroom and locks the door, and who knows full well her job is on the line. It's the question for the fledgling actor, desperate for the first big break, whose big shot producer sends the staff home and then disrobes.
It's the same question.
The difference is this: there are examples in the Hebrew scriptures of people (usually men) saying "No" to God. People argue with God. People curse God, or at least encourage each other to do so. People -- well, OK, Sarai -- even laugh at God when he comes out with one of his most preposterous notions. What does all-powerful God do to these people? They run, they hide, they dither about in circles, and then they end up doing what God wants done.
Does Mary know her scriptures? Has she heard these stories? Surely hers is an observant family, and is faithful herself; how else would she have earned God's favor?
Imagine the waitress saying no to her boss, or the actor pointing and giggling at the producer. We can guess what would happen next.
And God has gone one step further: he doesn't appear in, er, person; he sends Gabriel, perhaps in hopes that Mary will be less paralyzed with awe or fear. And she is! She actually plucks up the courage to ask questions.
Mary knows the God of the Scriptures. She knows she's in good hands. And God knows Mary, too.
And so she says yes.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Ohher: helpful, thanks.
Re virgin conception denial.
I am indifferent to this. It isn't central to the real life things we need the Jesus hope for.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfia
Apprentice
# 18799
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
whether or not, if Mary was as young as I often hear preached that she was, was really able to give informed consent to becoming pregnant (no human being can fully understand the Incarnation, but adulthood does help one understand the ramifications of pregnancy).
I once heard a priest defend the doctrine of the sinlessness of the BVM on the grounds that it would be required for her to give true consent. I don't remember the details, but the gist was that we normal humans often don't fully understand/take into consideration the implications of our actions because we are caught up in concupiscence, doubt, lack of faith, faintheartedness, etc. Since she was free of these things, she could fully and dispassionately contemplate God's request and give free and informed consent.
The priest went on to assert that if she did not give her consent, God could not have made her pregnant, since making a woman pregnant without her consent would be an evil act contrary to God's nature.
I think the traditional belief is that she became pregnant upon uttering "fiat voluntas tua" ("let it be according to Your will").
Certainly a different reading on the matter!
--------------------
Comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army with banners.
Posts: 6 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jun 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I've sometimes wondered why Gabriel didn't specifically *ask* Mary, rather than just announcing. But Mary *did* take it upon herself to verbally consent.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
GK, that makes me think of God announcing to Abraham that he's going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
Yes God does destroy the cities of the plain in the end, but the way Genesis tells it suggests that rather than being a non-negotiable announcement of a fait accompli, his initial statement was more of an opening gambit to get Abraham into haggling with him (until such time as Abraham was satisfied as to the terms).
Something similar seems to be going on with the Annunciation.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Golden Key quote:
I've sometimes wondered why Gabriel didn't specifically *ask* Mary, rather than just announcing. But Mary *did* take it upon herself to verbally consent.
It has been suggested that several others might have been ask and turned the offer down before Mary agreed.
.........But really, isn't much of this discussion daft because it is devoid of a sense of context and genre?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Absolutely, Kwesi ... and I say that as someone who is fairly conservative theologically.
It strikes me that there is an unhelpful 'literalism' here - although I do take the story of the Virgin Birth literally - but not in the sense that some here seem to be doing, ie that we could have taken a video of the Annunciation and shown it at a tribunal or in a court of law in order to accuse God of some kind of coercive 'rape'.
Hence I find the attempts by some Protestants to make the Holy Family into some kind of proto-bourgeoise modern nuclear family as wrong-headed and offensive as some popular Catholic pontifications about the purity of Mary's womb or the intactness of her hymen and so on ...
Both of which strike me as 'too much information' questions or issues.
Accuse me of trying to dodge out into the territory of Mystery if you like, but I don't find questions like, 'Who was there to record the conversation?' very helpful.
It'd be like asking who the stenographer or sound-recordist was when God and Satan had their famous exchange at the beginning of the Book of Job.
Or who was there to record Jonah's song from the belly of the great fish.
Such questions are daft because they ignore issues like genre.
We are dealing with a literary text not yesterday's newspaper.
That doesn't mean that it isn't True.
But it's woodenly literal in the extreme - and both liberal and conservative Christians are guilty of this - to start speculating as to who 'felt' what and who reacted in such and such a way ...
A particular bug-bear of mine isn't so much the kind of imaginative leaps one is encouraged to take in Ignatian spirituality - imagining yourself into the narrative - but the tendency in contemporary preaching to go off on tangents like, 'How would you have felt if you'd been Joseph? / one of the villagers / Mary's second cousin twice removed ... etc etc yadda yadda yadda ...'
I'm sorry, but whilst I can understand the sense in this to some extent it gets on my bloody nerves.
The next time I hear a preacher say, 'Imagine if you were there when the angel appeared to Mary / the Good Samaritan brought the traveller into the inn / when Jesus turned water in wine / when this, that or the other happened ...'
I'll throw my hymn-book at them.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ACK
Shipmate
# 16756
|
Posted
Mary's 'Yes' to Jesus, when Gabriel came avisiting with his news, seems to be the best explantion as to why God gave humanity free will. Giving us free will can be hard to explain, when you see what we do with it sometimes.
I believe in a God capable of ensuring she understood enough about what she was getting into, to give informed consent and also to ensure it was a true free choice on her part, not a 'young actress on the casting couch' type of consent.
Plus, I assume she was clever and knew her own mind, to be considered to have and bring up God's son. Genesis is written by men, about men for men, from a time when women - even wives, were possessions, yet the woman in it, Sarah, Hagar, Tamar etc, are strong willed, brave, who frequently manage to outwit the men and make them admit to being in the wrong.
I guess that is the influence of God, working through the writers of the Bible, despite their own culteral tendencies. So rather than expecting women to be quiet in church and wait until later to ask their husband to explain what they do not understand, God likes gobby, strong-willed woman. i.e. I assume Mary was like that, and she would not agree to something unless she truely agreed.
--------------------
'It's the only thing that worries me about going to Heaven. Would I ever get used to the height.' Norman Clegg
Posts: 56 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
G. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Wulfia. Thanks. How depressing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
(Relying on the Virgin Birth for your doctrine of the Incarnation puts you in some theologically dubious territory: Jesus is supposed to be wholly human and wholly God, not half and half.)
And that's precisely why we cannot say that Mary provided the human bit and God provided the divine bit - as if he were a divine person within a human body.
The incarnation, surely is that his body, soul and spirit were human AND his body, soul and spirit was divine.
It was perfect union, not two bits laminated onto each other or an inflated balloon.
What's a divine body? And what's a divine soul? And what's a human spirit?
Well, as Jesus is the only one with them, I guess we need to look at him.
But if he is truly and properly God and truly and properly man, then there is no part of him that can be either God or man exclusively.
Every 'bit of him must be divine and human at the same time.
If you disagree, burn me.
I don't disagree, I don't understand. I don't know what a divine body or soul is or a human spirit or soul is for that matter. Apart from poetic, otherwise superfluous terms.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As a believer in the perpetual virginity of Mary, I have in the past felt obliged to defend the doctrine every time it's denied. Glory to Jesus, I have been set free from this compulsion. The Protestant Wank-Fest that uses such weasel words as "explaining away the other kids," for whatever reason. The whole "fertile ground for the man's seed" bullshit could only be believed by city-dwelling navel-gazers; professional shepherds such as the Israelites couldn't possibly be so blind to what is happening to their flocks as to believe that bullshit.
And so on.
Y'all have fun pulling the pud.
Well you certainly did.
Although I can't blame you for responding to Ricardus that way.
I find dealing with fellow Christians who have to believe things that I can't, that I'm invincibly ignorant of, which is most, discouraging. How we work together despite these unbridgeable gulfs I don't know.
Me and thee probably need the freedom of Hell mousethief.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Gamaliel quote:
The next time I hear a preacher say, 'Imagine if you were there when the angel appeared to Mary / the Good Samaritan brought the traveller into the inn / when Jesus turned water in wine / when this, that or the other happened ...'
I'll throw my hymn-book at them.
Please, please, make sure you don't miss!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I don't defend the Virgin Birth. The Gospels of Mark and John don't mention it. Paul does not seem to know of it, nor do any of the lesser epistles. My faith does not stand or fall on it. I just let it stand on its own.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Well here's my unorthodox thought for the day:
The angels were having a bad day. They were tasked with finding someone suitable to be the mother of the Lord. They came to ask one, she said no. So they went to another, she said no. They went to another and another and another and another.
Nobody would consent. Nobody wanted to take on this responsibility.
In the end they found someone called Mary. She said yes.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Ah yeah, I missed that.
I have to say that I don't really care about these contextless and information-less discussions about the Nativity. I don't really care whether the story is totally made up with not one atom of truth about it other than that the mother's name was Mary.
To me it is more important to believe that there is no compulsion in religion and therefore there can be no compulsion from the deity.
If we're reading things that suggest there was or was, then maybe we need to stop reading those things.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Including the compulsion to believe in third order derived dogmata?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Including the compulsion to believe in third order derived dogmata?
I might agree if I understood what that meant.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfia:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
whether or not, if Mary was as young as I often hear preached that she was, was really able to give informed consent to becoming pregnant (no human being can fully understand the Incarnation, but adulthood does help one understand the ramifications of pregnancy).
I once heard a priest defend the doctrine of the sinlessness of the BVM on the grounds that it would be required for her to give true consent. I don't remember the details, but the gist was that we normal humans often don't fully understand/take into consideration the implications of our actions because we are caught up in concupiscence, doubt, lack of faith, faintheartedness, etc. Since she was free of these things, she could fully and dispassionately contemplate God's request and give free and informed consent.
The priest went on to assert that if she did not give her consent, God could not have made her pregnant, since making a woman pregnant without her consent would be an evil act contrary to God's nature.
I think the traditional belief is that she became pregnant upon uttering "fiat voluntas tua" ("let it be according to Your will").
Certainly a different reading on the matter!
This is similar to the line I take on the immaculate conception.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Compulsion in believing things that there's literally no reason to believe in apart from somebody who wasn't there (2nd order, not even 2nd or 3rd order or circle really) said so and their 3rd ... 5th rate apologists. All stumbling blocks upon stumbling blocks.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Wulfia wrote:
quote:
I once heard a priest defend the doctrine of the sinlessness of the BVM on the grounds that it would be required for her to give true consent. I don't remember the details, but the gist was that we normal humans often don't fully understand/take into consideration the implications of our actions because we are caught up in concupiscence, doubt, lack of faith, faintheartedness, etc. Since she was free of these things, she could fully and dispassionately contemplate God's request and give free and informed consent.
The priest went on to assert that if she did not give her consent, God could not have made her pregnant, since making a woman pregnant without her consent would be an evil act contrary to God's nature.
So, then, no one should ever have a baby with a non-sinless woman, because by definition there will be the risk that she is not really consenting?
(No need to answer, Wulfia, as I don't assume you were defending the idea.)
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfia:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
whether or not, if Mary was as young as I often hear preached that she was, was really able to give informed consent to becoming pregnant (no human being can fully understand the Incarnation, but adulthood does help one understand the ramifications of pregnancy).
I once heard a priest defend the doctrine of the sinlessness of the BVM on the grounds that it would be required for her to give true consent. I don't remember the details, but the gist was that we normal humans often don't fully understand/take into consideration the implications of our actions because we are caught up in concupiscence, doubt, lack of faith, faintheartedness, etc. Since she was free of these things, she could fully and dispassionately contemplate God's request and give free and informed consent.
The priest went on to assert that if she did not give her consent, God could not have made her pregnant, since making a woman pregnant without her consent would be an evil act contrary to God's nature.
I think the traditional belief is that she became pregnant upon uttering "fiat voluntas tua" ("let it be according to Your will").
Certainly a different reading on the matter!
This is similar to the line I take on the immaculate conception.
6th
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Although I can't blame you for responding to Ricardus that way.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Is it possible you are confusing me with one of the other posters I quoted in my mega-OP?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
So, then, no one should ever have a baby with a non-sinless woman, because by definition there will be the risk that she is not really consenting?
Well - with the caveat that this is a view I've only just encountered - I suppose the argument would be that agreeing to bear the Incarnate Word, perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting, and all the rest of it, requires a different level of comprehension compared to having sex with someone who is at least of the same species.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Why on earth it's Mary's status so important? I recall the meme of Madonna versus prostitute as being stated as one of the unconscious foundational assumptions for the classification of women in 1970s feminist literature. Men are supposed to pretend to love Betty while lusting after Veronica, i.e. the Mary virgin thing is about controlling sexual expression of women and atavistic desires of men.
In the Hollywood sex assault thing, actresses evidently are fallen women no angel would talk to. No Marys there. Nor working women in politicians' offices. The poiticians all married good girls who are at home making dinner and babies, and classify the career women they assault as sluts. At least unconsciously.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Although I can't blame you for responding to Ricardus that way.
Is it possible you are confusing me with one of the other posters I quoted in my mega-OP?
No.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Except that God didn't have sex with Mary, if that's what is being claimed here.
Hollywood moguls or dodgy bosses trying to abuse their power don't tend to have reproduction on their minds either.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... If Christ is Very God of Very God then in relating to Christ we are indeed relating to God - the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity.=. ...
I thought - and still think - that that is really, really fundamental to the core of orthodox Christianity such as everybody is exhorted to believe.
Have I been wrong all these years? I don't think so!
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why on earth it's Mary's status so important? I recall the meme of Madonna versus prostitute as being stated as one of the unconscious foundational assumptions for the classification of women in 1970s feminist literature. Men are supposed to pretend to love Betty while lusting after Veronica, i.e. the Mary virgin thing is about controlling sexual expression of women and atavistic desires of men.
In the Hollywood sex assault thing, actresses evidently are fallen women no angel would talk to. No Marys there. Nor working women in politicians' offices. The poiticians all married good girls who are at home making dinner and babies, and classify the career women they assault as sluts. At least unconsciously.
It may be that Mary's – and Everywoman's – status hinges not on virginity or marital status or apparent "sinlessness" but on the very act of consenting.
Consent – genuine or seeming, coerced, contrived, or authentic – bespeaks willingness. And while both men and women experience sexual needs and can become willing partners in consensual sex, what this means in a given cultural context has long been and continues to be different for women than it is for men.
Reliable and readily available contraception has been around for barely 2 generations, so the risks attending a woman's consent to sex (and potential childbirth) are still writ large on the human subconscious. Among Margaret Mead's Samoans, female consent – however defined or obtained – may have one set of meanings; among medieval western European Christians, another. Among Victorian Londoners, contemporary Saudis, ancient Hindus, or 19th-century Taoists, still others.
So we have to ask: what, in a given cultural context, does it mean for a woman to agree (or “agree,” or to be denied any possibility of agreeing or disagreeing) not merely to sex, but to what could be catastrophic, even mortal, risk physically (death in childbed has become uncommon only in the last century or so), socially, financially, morally, religiously?
To the male seeking, coercing, imagining, or disregarding any need for that consent, it may mean something quite different than it does for her. For him, her status (whatever it may have been) has already changed; she has stepped from the category of inviolate innocence to the category of . . . what? Risk taker? Rule breaker? Wild woman? How? Why? Simple: she has raised, in her consent (real, imagined, or coerced), this question: if she’s willing to risk so much here and now, in this present circumstance, how do we know she hasn’t done so before? And will she do so again? In an instant, on a single syllable (uttered or forced or imagined), she opens potentialities that didn’t exist before the consent (“consent”).
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
In relation to the Mary Magdalen tangent on the previous page:
Mary Magdalene was NOT a prostitute, this was some BS made up by a Pope a few centuries ago, he combined her with the sinful woman mentioned elsewhere. Jesus cast 7 demons out of Mary Magdalene, which could mean she has a mental illness or some other sickness but she was not a prostitute, it is universally agreed now.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Except that God didn't have sex with Mary, if that's what is being claimed here....
If I recall aright, the Mormons hold that God did have sex with Mary - but a study of Mormon doctrine makes it hard to consider them truly Christian, in any case.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Although I can't blame you for responding to Ricardus that way.
Is it possible you are confusing me with one of the other posters I quoted in my mega-OP?
No.
Then would you care to elaborate precisely what you are getting at?
Given that at the point when Mousethief responded, my only contribution to this thread *was* the mega-OP, which consisted entirely of snippets of other people's posts.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Except that God didn't have sex with Mary, if that's what is being claimed here.
Hollywood moguls or dodgy bosses trying to abuse their power don't tend to have reproduction on their minds either.
He abused His power some feel. A Catholic friend consistently feels.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Although I can't blame you for responding to Ricardus that way.
Is it possible you are confusing me with one of the other posters I quoted in my mega-OP?
No.
Then would you care to elaborate precisely what you are getting at?
Given that at the point when Mousethief responded, my only contribution to this thread *was* the mega-OP, which consisted entirely of snippets of other people's posts.
And your 'weasel words'. You didn't notice that in his short response?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Although I can't blame you for responding to Ricardus that way.
Is it possible you are confusing me with one of the other posters I quoted in my mega-OP?
No.
Then would you care to elaborate precisely what you are getting at?
Given that at the point when Mousethief responded, my only contribution to this thread *was* the mega-OP, which consisted entirely of snippets of other people's posts.
And your 'weasel words'. You didn't notice that in his short response?
Oh, my goodness!
I've been quietly following this thread but my limited patience can't bear this anymore.
As Ricardus has tried without success, let me:
Mousethief's response was to the people Ricardus was quoting, and not to Ricardus himself.
The line to which Mousethief referred as "weasel words" was something originally posted by no prophet.
Granted, the OP might perhaps have benefited from some coding, but as the intention has been subsequently explained, I think the layout is clear enough.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Riiiight. So, apart from the first two 'paragraphs', the post is just of quotes because the first one of Ohher says 'posted'? The others aren't responses?
So mousethief was as misdirected as me or responding to No... and/or all us other wankers?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Speaking as a Shipmate here, I would say yes, mousethief was misdirected. I would also point out that mousethief used the word "wank-fest" and not "wanker" and thus managed not to attract explicit hostly ire.
(He escaped a Hell call by me because I decided I had better things to do).
In the meantime, and again posting unofficially, I would like to see this thread back on track rather than caving in to attempts to push it beyond the limits of the Ten Commandments; there's plenty to discuss without being sidetracked by those throwing peanuts.
[ 12. November 2017, 12:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Yes, everything in the OP is a quote from another poster on the other thread. This is indicated by the use of a colon after the poster's name. I accept it could have been clearer, but if I'd wanted to post a response then I would have quoted what I was responding to, because I'm not so much of a dick that I'd expect readers to search through a separate five-page thread in order to follow the conversation.
If anyone wants to discuss this further they can do so in the Other Place.
[ 12. November 2017, 12:52: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Steady on Ricardus me old soup tureen. So those quotes all expressed your thoughts? Do they go all the way to the bottom?
And I note our host pointing out that mousethief didn't call us Prod Catholics wankers, that was my paraphrase. He only blessed our traditional anti-Tradition wank-fest.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Again posting as a Shipmate but swiftly running out of patience, let me do a bit of Martinsplaining:
It is common practice for someone to take the initiative of turning a tangent on one thread into a full-blown thread of its own, and doing so with an OP that quotes all the discussion so far in a spirit of politeness and summary.
It doesn't signal agreement or disagreement with what's quoted: it just signals an interest in discussing the tangent-turned-topic in its own right. As far as I'm concerned that's precisely what Ricardus did, no more, no less.
I was thinking that everyone was doing very well at ignoring Mousethief's post, especially as he dropped by allegedly just to tell us he didn't feel the need to take part, and I would, in the Lord, love you to do likewise or take it to Hell.
[ 12. November 2017, 15:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I was going to make the argument that life was statistically shorter back in 34 B.C., but the damn facts got in the way. Our median life spans haven't changed all that much from then.
Take the biblical account as absolutely true. (Not holding my breath on that BTW.) Trying to find statistics about when women married in biblical times in Israel requires wading through more BS from people with an axe to grind than I am willing to devote to the task. The most credible postings I found tended to show women married at quite a young age. Mary's impregnation by Joseph, God, as related in the Bible matches the typical age grouping. (Assuming any of that is right.)
Here in the sovereign south at least the marriage age for women tended to be young as well. That was changing enough at the time Jerry Lee Lewis married a 13 year old that it pooched his career.
Could be the same dynamics in both places.
Why have we changed ages for marriage? Possibly because marriage is now for purposes other than getting help around the farm (spousal and child labor.)
Does that make what Roy "I don't give a shit about the Constitution" Moore a pass?
I don't think so:
Customs had changed when he was having sex with those women.
It was not for the purpose of procreation for help around the farm to aide in survival.
He was an authority figure who was moreover sworn to enforce laws he was deliberately breaking. (Like ignoring the Constitution with the 10 Commandments at the courthouse thing.)
He was sneaking around doing it.
I despise that asshole. (Not a truly valid point of argument, but true nonetheless.)
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Tortuf wrote:
quote:
I was going to make the argument that life was statistically shorter back in 34 B.C., but the damn facts got in the way. Our median life spans haven't changed all that much from then.
Well, in any event, I think infant-mortality, rather than overall life expectancy, might be the more relevant statistic for discussing the reasons behind early marriage. I'm open to correction, but I feel pretty safe in saying that the survival rate for newborns was a lot lower in the first century AD, and that would likely be reflected in society's view of the proper age at which to start one's reproductive life.
quote:
Customs had changed when he was having sex with those women.
Yeah, I think this is one of those issues where our much-maligned friend cultural-relativism can come in handy.
If a politician in the USA today were revealed to be giving mild doses of unprescribed opium to his kids, I don't think the public would really buy it if his defenders replied: "Oh come on, back in the Victorian era, people gave laudanum to kids all the time." The Victorians had their way of regulating drugs, modern Americans have theirs, and whatever the relative merits of each system, violations can only lead to a lot of social disruption. Especially if done by someone otherwise tasked with making and enforcing the law.
quote:
Here in the sovereign south at least the marriage age for women tended to be young as well. That was changing enough at the time Jerry Lee Lewis married a 13 year old that it pooched his career.
I'm not exactly sure what "pooched" means, but if means "ended" or "destroyed", I'm not sure that's quite accurate. I believe Lewis actually returned to England for another tour, only a few years after he got kicked out for bringing his wife in. And while he was never quite a mainstream as Elvis, Roy Orbison, or even Johnny Cash, I recall him playing some pretty respectale venues well into the 1980s or even 90s. He might have been touring after that.
Check out the response Lewis got from a BRITISH audience in 1983 after joking about his earlier marriage.
[ 12. November 2017, 16:23: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I said it at the top of this thread, and it's worth saying again: the past is another country. It is a waste of time, to apply our 21st century mores to people who lived a long time ago.
Which is why I proposed (over in another Purg topic) that the dividing line is whether you're dead. If Winston Churchill or Henri II or Daniel Boone squeezed a knee or married a 14 year old, they are beyond our judgment and condemnation.
Only the alive can change their behavior, or not. Only the living get condemnation or praise.
This is especially important in the Mary story. We simply do not have data; the Gospel (like all literature of the period) hardly ever goes into psychological states or how people are feeling or thinking.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
<SNIP> the Gospel (like all literature of the period) hardly ever goes into psychological states or how people are feeling or thinking.
And likewise, the Gospel (like all literature of the period) hardly ever takes the trouble to actually quote women's words. Yet in the case, it does: Mary is presented as questioning the angel, and then later as accepting the proposition.
Again, I suspect this makes the question of consent, or assent, significant.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
