Thread: Mary, consent, and other issues Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020360
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
A tangent from the Men in Politics thread, sparked by a truly vile justification from an Alabama State Auditor:
“Take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus,” Alabama State Auditor Jim Zeigler told The Washington Examiner. “There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here. Maybe just a little bit unusual.”
Ohher posted:
Apparently he overlooked the Bible passage where Mary, unlike the women complaining about Moore, consents.
Mudfrog:
Firstly, no consent in modern law can be given even if you wanted to. A minor can be as willing as anything, but legally it's non-consensual.
Secondly, there is nothing in the Bible about the ages of Mary or Joseph. There;s a lot of summising (Mary was 12, 'Joseph was an old man', as the song says).
I myself have said in carol services in years gone by that Mary, being unmarried, would have been 13 or 14.
I think it would be a brave minister who trotted that stuff out nowadays!
Best to stick to what the Bible actually says - just because she was a virgin doesn't mean she was a child. There's nothing to suggest Joseph was old, a widower, or anything like that.
LilBuddha:
Given the time period, a young Mary/adult Joseph is a reasonable assumption.
But it isn’t a reasonable pairing now nor when Moore allegedly did so.
No prophet:
I thought the point of the Mary story was to have God plant his seed into unplowed soul. With the ancient belief that women provided only the growth medium for the man's planting. Because the seed is wholly God, Jesus is fully divine. The biblical is of course that God asked for her consent.
The thing is anachronistic. Those who wrote the story didn't understand biology. The perpetual virginity of Mary is something else entirely. It seems the point is motherhood, not marriage. With Joseph a weak character, 2 dimensional in biblical accounts. He gets to raise another's child, and has an unconsumated marriage, notwithstanding mention of Jesus' brother, which means he and Mary had a normal sex life or we accept explaining away the other kids as from another mother or marriage.
There's something pathological in all of this mythology. Where women have sexuality as a precious possession which men regulate. Taking either legtimately or illegally. And it's not really women's.
Baptist Trainfan:
And to me that is the difficulty, as there is such an imbalance of power here. Can one realistically say that Mary had any real choice in the matter? If not, then is God guilty of abuse?
The radical Catholic feminist theologian Mary Daly wrote: "It should not be imagined that Mary had any real role in this conception and birth. ... the Virgin means only the vessel waiting in purity for the bearing of the Saviour. ...
"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".
Strong words indeed - but does she have a point? (I preached on this a couple of years ago and got a wide variety of reactions!)
[ 10. November 2017, 14:09: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is always a temptation to apply modern standards to the past. At that period, women had no agency; they were handed from father to husband like livestock. There is no getting around it.
To expect an account of that period to meet our 21st century mores is unreasonable, like asking why the Roman Centurions didn't take a selfie at the Crucifixion.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The Annunciation isn't the only place in the Bible where the ability and/or right to talk back to our creator comes up. At the very least, I'd say Scripture opens up that as a legitimate possibility, albeit with varying results (Zecharaiah vs. Job, for starters).
From that, my tentative observation is that the Annunciation gives Mary more of at least a semblance of choice than if she had simply found herself pregnant with no explanation.
ETA Mousethief: ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 10. November 2017, 14:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
professional shepherds such as the Israelites couldn't possibly be so blind to what is happening to their flocks as to believe that bullshit.
I wonder what you mean by this. How does being a shepherd change a view that thinks male seed grows within a female with no contribution from the female?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I thought the point of the Mary story was to have God plant his seed into unplowed soul. With the ancient belief that women provided only the growth medium for the man's planting. Because the seed is wholly God, Jesus is fully divine.
Orthodox Christian belief since pretty early on is that Jesus is fully human, with his humanity derived from his mother. So clearly the view that the woman is only the growth medium was not widely shared by the early Church fathers.
I believe the usual position among doctrinal historians is that an ultra-high Christology postdates the Gospels, including the doctrine of the virgin birth.
quote:
With Joseph a weak character, 2 dimensional in biblical accounts.
I think this is employing an anachronistic notion of literary character.
quote:
There's something pathological in all of this mythology. Where women have sexuality as a precious possession which men regulate. Taking either legtimately or illegally. And it's not really women's.
While this probably was a widespread attitude at the time I don't think it follows from even your description of the mythology. (Nor would I say it was pathological in that it was clearly in the interests of the male elites to maintain the society in that way.)
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And to me that is the difficulty, as there is such an imbalance of power here. Can one realistically say that Mary had any real choice in the matter?
Possibly, if the story imagines God as a giant sky-fairy like Zeus. I don't think the story does imagine God like that: the angel shows up, but God doesn't.
Really, the same applies to any interaction between God and humans. If you imagine God as a giant sky-fairy then no human being, Moses, Jonah, Mary, Teresa of Avila, has any possible autonomy. That's why Christian theism has referred to Platonism or other forms of metaphysical accounts of God that de-anthropomorphise God.
quote:
The radical Catholic feminist theologian Mary Daly wrote: "It should not be imagined that Mary had any real role in this conception and birth. ... the Virgin means only the vessel waiting in purity for the bearing of the Saviour. ...
Daly is apparently arguing that given the choice one should opt for the least feminist interpretation. What exactly is the force of the 'it should not be imagined'? Why shouldn't it? The consensus of church iconography is that Mary's obedience, reversing the sin of Eve, did play a real role. The Church has not been feminist, but why should we not imagine even that crack by which feminism might get in?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The Annunciation isn't the only place in the Bible where the ability and/or right to talk back to our creator comes up. ... My tentative observation is that the Annunciation gives Mary more of at least a semblance of choice than if she had simply found herself pregnant with no explanation.
Agreed. But - and again I'm thinking to a degree in the context of current news - does the setting of an unexpected conversation with the Almighty Creator (or, at least, with his emissary) really give her a genuine choice?
(The discussion can become even more problematic if one automatically thinks of God as "male" and Mary as, of course, female).
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Maybe someone can explain to me why this trash-talk about "women being merely the vessel for the seed" comes from? Yes, it probably was a view in distant antiquity. But not at the point that we are talking about here.
Dammit, there are articles - indeed at least one whole book - written on what people did believe about conception in the first century. Yet despite continuous reminders, it always gets ignored. Why is this?
It's obviously some sort of psychological projection. Either that or a wankfest, indeed.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
There's no clarity at all, and you can't argue with a true believer nor those who classify people who don't believe precisely as they do as masturbators.
The ancients thought a diversity of things, not one thing. Because one version of which morphs its way into debates about Mary and gets crystalized there hardly dismisses all the other possibilities, with all the other tangents including wanting a mother-god image. All which is pretty much irrelevant to the core of Christianity, which is all about Jesus.
I think the character of Joseph is the more interesting one mainly because we don't know too much about him.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Interestingly, I read a sermon by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow earlier today which gives an interesting take on Joseph's role which makes him far less two-dimensional. It was a controversial sermon in some respects and given in the 1820s.
It does, of course, align with the traditional Orthodox view of the Virgin Birth and so on. I found it a very moving sermon and there are some great one-liners in it. I may quote some in due course.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But - and again I'm thinking to a degree in the context of current news - does the setting of an unexpected conversation with the Almighty Creator (or, at least, with his emissary) really give her a genuine choice?
I'll answer that if you'll first answer me this: "who are you, oh man, to talk back to God?"
The more I think about it, the more I think that not only are we entitled to talk back (that's precisely what Paul is doing in Romans 9-11 as he wrestles with the dilemma his theological musings have set up for him), but that the divine potter actually expects that of his vases. I'd say this text supports that. It highlights Mary's consent.
I also think you're reading far too much back into the text.
(I once started a thread on whether Samson was the first suicide bomber. I did not get very far either! We'll get to Ananias and Sapphira later...)
[ 10. November 2017, 15:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is always a temptation to apply modern standards to the past. At that period, women had no agency; they were handed from father to husband like livestock. There is no getting around it.
To expect an account of that period to meet our 21st century mores is unreasonable, like asking why the Roman Centurions didn't take a selfie at the Crucifixion.
Yes, exactly. We have to take the story as it presents itself, and see what it says from within its cultural context. ISTM the main thing this story is saying is that Jesus is divine. Whatever theory about different parents' contributions to the makeup of a child the Gospel's author might have held, I'm pretty sure that's not what the story's about!
As to Joseph being thought an old man, even significantly older than Mary - I suspect that comes not only from tradition, but also from the fact that Jesus entrusts her to the Beloved Disciple during the Crucifixion. That would also imply that Jesus' brothers and sisters mentioned in the Gospels aren't Mary's children, either. Of course, that story is also about Christ reconfiguring our familial allegiances. But it might be part of where the traditional ideas about Mary's and Joseph's respective ages and whether they had children together comes from, as a biblical source.
As for Jim Zeigler's statement, he seems to be implying that Joseph is Jesus' father. That shouldn't sit well with his base!
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I think some of what we do know about Joseph makes him seem quite significant. He receives several informative dreams sent by God and acts upon them. In most of the Bible, this alone would make him a big shot, and he would have a book named after him. More to the point, though, is that he is paid an enormous compliment by God: "I think so well of you that I want you to raise my child." Who are we to second-guess God's judgement?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Is there any evidence for Mary's age in any of the early texts (i.e before 300 AD, say), or any contemporary evidence for what counted as marriageable age in first century Palestine?
I have often seen it stated that Mary 'would have been' quite young for marriage by modern standards, although I've never seen anything advanced about Joseph's age one way or another. Then again, I'm not quite sure what 'modern standards' might mean.
In the UK, the legal minimum age for marriage is currently 16 (with parental consent needed in England and Wales or Northern Ireland). Until 1929, the legal minimum age in Scotland was 14 for a boy and 12 for a girl, although an early 20th Century source states that marriages at such a young age were almost unknown.
A brief search online has not turned up any statistics for the number of marriages in the UK or its constituent nations where one of the parties is under 18.
If we were to look simply at the laws as an indication of age of marriage, then we might think people were married quite young, although statistical evidence shows that the average age to get married in the UK is currently around 29 or 30, and 45 years ago it was 26 for women and 29 for men.
So back to my opening question, what evidence is there for the ages of Mary and/or Joseph. And if the answer is "it was customary in that time/ culture" what is the evidence for the custom?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's no clarity at all, and you can't argue with a true believer nor those who classify people who don't believe precisely as they do as masturbators.
But you can argue with those who classify people who don't believe precisely as they do as pathological?
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[qb]
(I once started a thread on whether Samson was the first suicide bomber. I did not get very far either! We'll get to Ananias and Sapphira later...)
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Excellent.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
ISTM the main thing this story is saying is that Jesus is divine.
It's saying that Jesus is more important than Samuel. I think that's the only uncontestable interpretation. I don't think the Virgin Birth on its own is sufficient to show that Jesus is divine. Islam affirms the Virgin Birth, which it wouldn't if it thought it had to mean Jesus is divine.
(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.)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The more I think about it, the more I think that not only are we entitled to talk back (that's precisely what Paul is doing in Romans 9-11 as he wrestles with the dilemma his theological musings have set up for him), but that the divine potter actually expects that of his vases.
Yes, and we see it (or something like it) in he Psalms too.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
As to Joseph being thought an old man, even significantly older than Mary - I suspect that comes not only from tradition, but also from the fact that Jesus entrusts her to the Beloved Disciple during the Crucifixion. That would also imply that Jesus' brothers and sisters mentioned in the Gospels aren't Mary's children, either. Of course, that story is also about Christ reconfiguring our familial allegiances. But it might be part of where the traditional ideas about Mary's and Joseph's respective ages and whether they had children together comes from, as a biblical source. [/QB]
Or it simply points to the idea that Joseph is dead and could have died 20 years ago at the age of 30 leaving Mary with loads of kids under the age of 13.
Why did Mary get landed with John as her 'son'?
Well, he was Mary's sister Salome's boy - Jesus' cousin.
He was the disciple Jesus loved - they were best mates as cousins often are.
His own brothers did not yet believe in him and probably had families and kids of their own.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I also think you're reading far too much back into the text.
Possibly true,though every piece of Scripture is written in a context and read in many.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
In the Roman empire it was legal to marry a woman when she turned 14. Puberty, in other words. Everybody knew this was open to abuse. It has been a long legal effort over the centuries to force that age upwards; it was legal to marry a 14 year old when Victoria was queen.
You cannot take the Bible as a complete guide to modern jurisprudence. Even your common or garden political columnist in the Post can list verses that clearly cannot be put into play today. Every Christian, either consciously or unconsciously, accepts some bits of Scripture and dismisses others. All our debates revolve around which bits to ignore.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
ISTM the main thing this story is saying is that Jesus is divine.
It's saying that Jesus is more important than Samuel. I think that's the only uncontestable interpretation. I don't think the Virgin Birth on its own is sufficient to show that Jesus is divine. Islam affirms the Virgin Birth, which it wouldn't if it thought it had to mean Jesus is divine.
(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.)
I should've been more clear.
I don't base the doctrine of the Incarnation on this text; I base it on the theology the early Church worked out on the subject over the course of several centuries.
Also, when I say "that Jesus is divine," I don't even mean to say that he is God (in that context; I do believe he is, but I'm not trying to put that into this text). What I meant to say and should've said more clearly is that the story seems to be saying he comes from God in some way.
I'm actually fairly agnostic about the Virgin birth. If somehow we were to find out Jesus had a human father, it would not affect my faith a single bit. I use the language because the Bible and the creeds use it - just like I use "God the Father" without believing God is male.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
My understanding is the orthodox doctrine of Virgin Birth is that it is demonstratively NOT like the pagan tales of gods copulating with human figures, that the Virgin Birth story hearkens back to Genesis 1, when God brings life simply through word and Spirit, not through any sexual act.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Brenda Clough wrote:
quote:
In the Roman empire it was legal to marry a woman when she turned 14. Puberty, in other words. Everybody knew this was open to abuse. It has been a long legal effort over the centuries to force that age upwards; it was legal to marry a 14 year old when Victoria was queen.
The age of consent in Canada was 14 until 2008, when the Conservatives raised it.
But there were caveats about how an adult partner couldn't be in a position of authority over the minor(eg. teacher/student), which probably took care of most of the situations where such relationships were likely to develop.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Is there any evidence for Mary's age in any of the early texts (i.e before 300 AD, say), or any contemporary evidence for what counted as marriageable age in first century Palestine?
The Protevangelium of James (mid-second century) says she was 16. Granted, the Protevangelium of James tells us nothing reliable about Mary's life, but presumably its readers would have found 16 to be a plausible age.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:
quote:
It is thus considered the duty of every Israelite to marry as early in life as possible. Eighteen years is the age set by the Rabbis (Ab. v. 24); and any one remaining unmarried after his twentieth year is said to be cursed by God Himself (Ḳid. 29b). Some urge that children should marry as soon as they reach the age of puberty, i.e., the fourteenth year (Sanh. 76b); and R. Ḥisda attributed his mental superiority to the fact that he was married when he was but sixteen years old (Ḳid. l.c.). It was, however, strictly forbidden for parents to give their children in marriage before they had reached the age of puberty (Sanh. 76b).
A man who, without any reason, refused to marry after he had passed his twentieth year was frequently compelled to do so by the court. To be occupied with the study of the Torah was regarded as a plausible reason for delaying marriage; but only in very rare instances was a man permitted to remain in celibacy all his life (Yeb. 63b; Maimonides, "Yad," Ishut, xv. 2, 3; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 1, 1-4; see Celibacy).
[ 10. November 2017, 16:32: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Brenda Clough wrote:
quote:
In the Roman empire it was legal to marry a woman when she turned 14. Puberty, in other words. Everybody knew this was open to abuse. It has been a long legal effort over the centuries to force that age upwards; it was legal to marry a 14 year old when Victoria was queen.
The age of consent in Canada was 14 until 2008, when the Conservatives raised it.
But there were caveats about how an adult partner couldn't be in a position of authority over the minor(eg. teacher/student), which probably took care of most of the situations where such relationships were likely to develop.
In England the age of consent was 13 until 1885
quote:
Background
Following sustained efforts by social purity campaigners such as Josephine Butler,a Criminal Law Amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament in 1883. One of the key amendments it proposed was raising the age of female sexual consent from 13 to 16. By 1885 the Bill had still not been passed and looked set to be abandoned.source
[removed possible copyright infringement]
[ 10. November 2017, 18:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
A rather clunky extract, but concrete evidence of the positive way in which TSA acted in this matter.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
IJ
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
Since Mary's age is not given, and is a matter for speculation, it pleaseth our imaginations to make it what we want.
It pleaseth creepy pedophiles to imagine her being a twelve year old child.
It pleaseth me to imagine her a middle-aged cat lady, because if her virginity wasn't a problem, her age wouldn't be either (cf. Sarah).
Bonus points: imagining her as drawn by Gary Larsen of "The Far Side."
[ 10. November 2017, 16:49: Message edited by: Leaf ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Sorry Hosts, the first post was a prototype that I thought I'd deleted. It was also a reply to the wrong post. Could it be deleted please, leaving the second one intact?
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
. . . and before we've even got to the end of page 1, the whole question of Mary's possible agency and/or consent is swallowed up . . .
The surviving texts which make up the gospels rarely include words spoken aloud by women. The passage in which Mary says "Let it be unto me according to Thy will. . ." etc. is one rare exception. Surely the rarity of quoting women's words makes this passage notable, and not trivial. Though we cannot be completely certain of the precise significance of its inclusion to those recording the narrative(s), can't we be reasonably confident that it has significance?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Mudfrog:
Interesting history, thanks.
And not to shadow mod, but I think you might be skating on somewhat thin ice, as for as the board's rules about posting lengthy excerpts go. Maybe just a link to the original site would be the best idea?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Mudfrog:
Interesting history, thanks.
And not to shadow mod, but I think you might be skating on somewhat thin ice, as for as the board's rules about posting lengthy excerpts go. Maybe just a link to the original site would be the best idea?
I know, but the original is a 10 page pdf.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
MudFrog
You might be intrigued to know that the journalist involved was a Congregationalist.
Jengie
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
. . . and before we've even got to the end of page 1, the whole question of Mary's possible agency and/or consent is swallowed up . . .
The surviving texts which make up the gospels rarely include words spoken aloud by women. The passage in which Mary says "Let it be unto me according to Thy will. . ." etc. is one rare exception. Surely the rarity of quoting women's words makes this passage notable, and not trivial. Though we cannot be completely certain of the precise significance of its inclusion to those recording the narrative(s), can't we be reasonably confident that it has significance?
Good point.
The more obvious point that Moore's morally and biblically illiterate defenders seem to be missing is that the birth narratives stress that this is a non-sexual conception. For supposed biblical literalists to bring Joseph into it as an excuse for pedophilia seems a bit of a stretch, given that he himself doesn't have sex with his own wife, at least (in Protestant interpretations) until after the birth of Jesus. If non-literalists were really the raging immoral libertines that conservatives fashion them to be, the argument from Joseph (assuming he's the true father) might make sense, but from a biblical literalist it's a bit of a head-scratcher.
[ 10. November 2017, 17:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Most American churchpersons agree that Moore's supporter was not speaking from any great knowledge of the Bible or doctrine, and are in fact furious with him. So, not that it's any great comfort to Americans, the guy is just another Christian crazyhead. We have so many of them I wonder that anyone's a Christian at all.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
As I've said elsewhere, I'm amazed that we get any congregation at all at Our Place, come Sunday morning.... ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
IJ
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
It pleaseth me to imagine her a middle-aged cat lady
La Madonna del Gatto.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The more obvious point that Moore's morally and biblically illiterate defenders seem to be missing is that the birth narratives stress that this is a non-sexual conception.
Sexual or non-sexual conception, God was employing the BVM's body in a very intimate way by choosing her to bear His Son in her womb. Therefore, the questions of her age and her ability to consent - and how much choice God was giving her anyway - are all still very relevant to me.
Is it legal - and if it is legal, is it moral - for a girl below the age of consent (and/or the age of adulthood, in jurisdictions where those ages are different) to undergo artificial insemination or to carry a surrogate pregnancy (assuming those are legal for adult women in that jurisdiction)?
Imagine that your own teenage daughter became pregnant with no scientific explanation and that she claimed that she had received a vision telling her the child was from God. Even if you believed that the child indeed was from God, would not some part of you feel resentful that these very intimate changes to her body and her life were taking place before she was old enough to perhaps fully understand what she was agreeing to? Does the fact that in the BVM's day very young girls were treated very much like adults by their families, husbands, and society give God an excuse to act in this way and still be all-good?
I don't know Greek, but in my reading of the Annunciation Gospel Gabriel talks about what "will" happen to the BVM and does not give much indication that if she refuses that the pregnancy will not happen. The BVM does agree to it but what would have happened if she had not?
FYI, although I like to think of myself as pretty progressive in my beliefs, I do believe in the perpetual virginity of the BVM (not that I think she would be any less venerable if she had been sexually active). I also have a huge devotion to her - I find it much easier to relate to God through her than I do through Jesus or any other male, although I know that Jesus is God and she, like us, is in the image of God.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
How do we know if Gabriel went to someone else, say Joan, and she said "no". Any number of women (or girls, God help God) could have been asked and turned it down. Did Gabriel have to choose a virgin to talk to? Why?
Of the Marys, Magdeline is the more interesting one to discuss I think. Now, would it have been okay for Jesus to be born of her? Why not?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Shockingly perhaps, to my evangelical friends (were they aware of it), I'm also developing something of a 'devotion' to the Blessed Virgin Mary ... although I'm not sure what term to use for it - 'devotion' sounds more Catholic than I actually am ... although I'm probably pre- or proto-Catholic in that sense.
So, I don't particularly have an issue with the Perpetual Virginity of the BVM although I would draw the line at some RC understandings of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception etc etc ...
I wouldn't go as far as Stonespring either in suggesting that it's 'easier' somehow to relate to God through Mary rather than through Christ ...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
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.
You don't have to be as High as a kite and way, way up the candle to 'get' that ... Mudfrog and other non-conformist Protestant evangelicals certainly 'get' that.
But the whole point, surely, of a High Mariology (not Mariolatory) is to support a High Christology.
I remember, years ago, seeing a comment from a Welsh Anglo-Catholic priest that if you weren't a 'good Marian' you were in danger of becoming a 'good Arian.'
Nice sound-bite, but I thought then, as now, that he was over-egging the pudding to some extent (to use a phrase I've been criticised for in the past).
But I could see his point.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
On the Mary Magdalene thing, well it would appear that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were contemporaries - at least I'm assuming so. I don't tend to envisage her as being that much older than Jesus.
But it's all speculation isn't it?
What we have in the Gospel accounts is Christ born of Mary - not born of Joan or Gertrude or Mary of Magdala.
We can speculate as much as we like - 'Oooh, wouldn't it be transgressive and exciting if Christ's mother had been a prostitute ...'
But what we have, we have.
Yes, we can speculate, we can suggest alternatives, we can bounce this, that or the other ideas around but we don't have many alternatives other than the texts and the traditions/Traditions that have been handed down.
It's not strictly analogous, of course, but it'd be rather like suggesting, 'What if Shakespeare had made Shylock a Christian and all the Venetians Jewish?'
Or 'What if Tolstoy had set 'War and Peace' during the Wars of the Roses rather than the Napoleonic invasion of Russia?'
Or 'What if Ian Fleming had made Bond a woman? Or gay? Or ...'
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I find discussions about Mary's bodily virginity whether it is Catholics who wax poetically about how pure her womb is to Protestants who insist that Mary and Joseph had a "healthy sex life" to be borderline creepy and misogynistic.
It is bizarre that some Christians feel free to speculate about the Virgin Mother of God's intimate life, when we would consider any discussion about any other woman or man's private life to be taboo.
Praise Mary for her witness, her as a disciple, her as a mother to Jesus, more than simply giving birth to him, but raising him and teaching him, but to talk about Mary's body risks depersonalizing and objectifying her.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wouldn't go as far as Stonespring either in suggesting that it's 'easier' somehow to relate to God through Mary rather than through Christ ...
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.
The problem is probably particular to me and isn't a theological one - I just have a very hard time relating to the divine in a man. Any man. And I am a man! I'm not denying the reality of the incarnation in the person of a man, Jesus Christ, or that men are just as much in God's image as women. I just have an issue with men - it has more to do with me than it has to do with men. And all this stuff in the news isn't helping to be honest. But this is besides the point of this thread.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
The question is was asking earlier is whether it is or not invasive or even violating of God to send an angel to the BVM saying that she "will" bear His Son, before she even has a chance to reply. (Does anyone know exactly what the Greek says?) And even if it was God's intent to let Mary decide to become pregnant or not (is there any indication of this?), 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).
And with the sexual harassment scandals much is said about the asymmetry of power in the situations being revealed. This is the ultimate asymmetry of power. Think of the repercussions of saying no to God!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Which were my original questions.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, but as has been said upthread, we're talking about a very different sensibility back in antiquity.
However we cut it, though, the Incarnation is a pretty scandalous and mysterious thing ...
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.
Of course, nothing should be beyond the pale in terms of discussion and debate but we don't have a lot go on other than the Gospel accounts and tradition/Tradition.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Which were my original questions.
A lot of the discussion by posters after your OP has been about how Mary's conception of Jesus was different from the sexual harassment and abuse cases being discussed, issues of consent aside, because it was not sexual. But any pregnancy involves a woman's body in a very intimate and, even if joyous, frightening way, so I don't think the lack of sex takes away that many of the serious questions you brought up.
God called David when he was young, but it not involve placing a human life inside his body.
The Adam and Eve story may be more allegorical than factual, but the fashioning of Eve from one of Adam's ribs while he was unconscious (in one of the versions of the Creation), even though Adam had asked for a companion, was also done in a way that involved a potentially violating intrusion upon a human body - and I am not sure if he had consented to his partner being made in such a way. As for Mary, a pregnancy affects a woman's body for much longer than a rib extraction.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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"?)
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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... ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
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.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Wulfia (# 18799) on
:
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!
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
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?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by ACK (# 16756) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
G. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Wulfia. Thanks. How depressing.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
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!
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Kwesi got there before you...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Including the compulsion to believe in third order derived dogmata?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Including the compulsion to believe in third order derived dogmata?
I might agree if I understood what that meant.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
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.)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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!
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
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”).
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
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.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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?
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
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.)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
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.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
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.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Yes, but we have to deduce her mental state. The text tells us nothing. One could imagine the text without Mary's words -- it would then become more like Danae and the shower of gold or Europa and the bull, the divine just sweeping the young woman away without asking her opinion. So yes, we know what she -says-. We just don't know about her consent, or anything else about how she feels about it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Even a script doesn't tell you everything. Consider the difference between the "lame" script Betty is going to audition for in Mulholland Drive and how she actually plays it at the audition.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, but we have to deduce her mental state. The text tells us nothing. One could imagine the text without Mary's words -- it would then become more like Danae and the shower of gold or Europa and the bull, the divine just sweeping the young woman away without asking her opinion. So yes, we know what she -says-. We just don't know about her consent, or anything else about how she feels about it.
Wait-- isn't consent generally signified by words??? If not, then what in the world WOULD constitute consent to you???
Yes, I get that consent is complicated and I certainly don't want to be propping up the guys that use "women are so hard to read" as an excuse. But, honestly, I think if someone say "let it be as you have said" you gotta take that as "yes".
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
...Check out the response Lewis got from a BRITISH audience in 1983 after joking about his earlier marriage.
Revolting.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, but we have to deduce her mental state. The text tells us nothing. One could imagine the text without Mary's words -- it would then become more like Danae and the shower of gold or Europa and the bull, the divine just sweeping the young woman away without asking her opinion. So yes, we know what she -says-. We just don't know about her consent, or anything else about how she feels about it.
Further to cliffdweller's post, I'd also argue that it's nigh-on impossible to deduce Mary's mental state from this text. For instance, I can think of at least two possibilities:
1) Mary is clearly frightened by the appearance of the angel. The news the angel brings her ("God's going to make you pregnant with Messiah!") does little to calm her fears; Gabriel's talk of the "power of the Most High overshadowing you" hardly helps with this! Her question to the angel is a fearful one, spoken with trembling in the midst of this fear-inducing encounter. Mary's "consent" is .'. comes purely out of her panic at what is happening and her fear of what will happen to her if she says no.
2) Yes, Mary is perplexed/frightened by the appearance of the angel - but this is a common reaction in the Bible to angelic encounters. By the time Gabriel has finished the initial announcement, Mary has recovered sufficiently to question and probe what has been said to her - as many of the great people of faith did: Abraham, Moses, many of the prophets. (To "cheat" a little: we know from the Magnificat that Mary will go on to see her pregnancy and the child she will bear as part of God's work of overturning the powers and systems of the world, raising the humble and casting down the proud etc.) Mary, at heart, is a woman of faith and her consent should be seen ultimately as an expression of that faith and trust in God.
Either of these, I would suggest, is supportable from the passage and they point in very different directions as to what Mary's mental state might be. I'd suggest that this means that trying to deduce it from the text is fraught with difficulties; as cliffdweller says, in the end, don't we have to accept the words?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
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 don't know anything about this other than what I read, but at least some think his career took a dive when he bought his "new" bride to London.
quote:
“I was in England when they ran him out of the country,” Kris Kristofferson has said, “and it really seemed unfair to me, because he had no idea he was doing anything wrong. He went immediately from being a guy who made $10,000 a night to a guy who didn’t make $100 a night.”
I also note that it is said he was 22 and still married to Jane Mitcham at the time.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
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.
ISTR Texas changed the age of marriage with parental consent from 14 to 16 when an FDLS sect became active in state.
Going back to the original post; it appears that there is a cultural context to this in some circles, see here:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-brightbill-roy-moore-evangelical-culture-20171110-story.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/12/the-rest-of-the-maranatha-story.html
The story in the second link is - at very best - bizarre in the extreme.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Luke 1:46-49 gives Mary's state of mind after she had met her cousin Elizabeth. quote:
And Mary said,
‘My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour,
for he has looked with favour on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for the Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
Whatever her state of mind just after Gabriel had left her, she was happy and strong not long afterwards.
Moo
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye. Nice. Not the language of a normal 13 year old. Or even 17 year old. The descending age of menarche just two centuries ago in the West.
A sociobiological argument is that pubescent human females gain secondary sexual characteristics more obviously than males to be treated as pre-childbearing women, to trigger restrained interest. Pubescent males are man-cubs, to be tolerated as they aren't a serious proposition, competition. Females are to be 'protected' from yet older males and betrothed to the highest status bidder for when they are actually more psychologically and physically capable of childbearing with greater pelvic development.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
This is ridiculous. Are we really trying to say that we can tell something about Juliet in R&J because she's not using words like a 12/14/16 (whatever) year old?
Don't you understand the nature of myth and story?
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
Calvinism creates much bigger issues of consent if God controls everyone's choices
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't think Calvinism does teach that God 'controls' people's thoughts and choices, rather it would claim that God works in and through them in a mysterious way to achieve his predetermined ends.
It isn't that people are sock-puppets.
There's Calvinism and there's hyper-Calvinism.
Meanwhile, I'm with mr cheesy on the ridiculous speculations about Mary's state of mind and so on.
I re-iterate the threat I made upthread, the next time I hear a preacher say, 'What was Mary / Joseph / Moses / Daniel / Isaiah / the apostle Paul / Jesus ... thinking when ...' I'll throw more than one hymnbook at them ...
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
...Check out the response Lewis got from a BRITISH audience in 1983 after joking about his earlier marriage.
Revolting.
Yeah, I just thought I'd post it for anyone who might have been wondering how Brexit could have passed.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is ridiculous. Are we really trying to say that we can tell something about Juliet in R&J because she's not using words like a 12/14/16 (whatever) year old?
Don't you understand the nature of myth and story?
Oh! You mean Mary didn't ACTUALLY sing the Magnificat? Cuh. Fuh. What can we believe eh? The good doctor ... who? ... made it all up. Ah well.
What about the biology?
Can I still believe in the Incarnation miss?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Wasn't Mary echoing Hannah's Song?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think Calvinism does teach that God 'controls' people's thoughts and choices, rather it would claim that God works in and through them in a mysterious way to achieve his predetermined ends.
It isn't that people are sock-puppets.
There's Calvinism and there's hyper-Calvinism.
Meanwhile, I'm with mr cheesy on the ridiculous speculations about Mary's state of mind and so on.
I re-iterate the threat I made upthread, the next time I hear a preacher say, 'What was Mary / Joseph / Moses / Daniel / Isaiah / the apostle Paul / Jesus ... thinking when ...' I'll throw more than one hymnbook at them ...
So there's no double predestination? God doesn't reprobate? Calvin didn't write this? "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." in Institutes of Christian Religion. Book Three, Chapter 3?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Martin, you know that paradox is as old as the hills.
The way I resolve it is that at the level of my experience, I feel able to give informed consent to things. Sometimes I might be being conned; if I am, there's often a part of me that gives me a niggling feeling of being conned even when my conscious mind refuses it.
As posted above, I think the Annunciation offers a picture in which God's foreordained will (that at least somebody would bear the Christ child...) interweaves with Mary's informed consent. I trust in the goodness of God enough to believe that he wasn't conning Mary and that Gabriel was not abusing his authority gradient to force the issue.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
What Eutychus said, plus this:
Those setting this narrative down in the first place believed consent was essential; that's why it's present in the story. (Mary's age? Apparently not so much.) Consent was so important that a female character was provided with a voice -- not all that common in similar narratives of the time -- and is portrayed both as questioning this angelic visitation and as agreeing to carry out this mission.
Some narrative trouble is gone to here to show us Mary's question, respond to it, and to detail Mary's consent. Her consent has nothing to do with her age or her virginity or her legal status or the biomechanics of the Incarnation. Mary's consent, sought and received, shows us the nature of the relationship God seeks with human creation, and it models the relationship God desires to be followed among Her people.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I don't see a paradox Eutychus. Simpleton that I am I take the story at face value. God wouldn't have sent archangels (now THERE'S a thing) round to a bunch of random Jewish virgins until one randomly assented to His proposal. Why do we want that to be Pythonesquely so? She was CHOSEN. Known. You know, by God. You're a nice ancient Jewish girl with no hang-ups and an archangel shows up (it was all a dream really? Mary who?). You say yes of course. I mean I would, now, as an old bloke with every hang-up. Archangel. God. Whatever you say.
It's either that or we go the whole Spongiform theolopathy route.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Ok then. Nothing for it but to unleash some CS Lewis on you, edited down as much as I can:
quote:
The thing had seemed a sheer impossibility... And then, without any apparent movement of the will... There had arisen before him, with perfect certitude, the knowledge 'about this time tomorrow you will have done the impossible'... He knew - almost as a historical proposition - that it was going to be done... The future act stood there, fixed and unalterable as if he had already performed it.
(...)
You might say, if you like, that the power of choice had simply been set aside and an inflexible destiny substituted for it. On the other hand, you might say that he had been delivered from the rhetoric of his passions and had emerged into unassailable freedom. Ransom could not, for the life of him, see any difference between these two statements. Predestination and freedom were apparently identical. He could no longer see any meaning in the many arguments he had heard on this subject.
-Perelandra, chapter 11.
[ 14. November 2017, 14:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
What Eutychus said, plus this:
Those setting this narrative down in the first place believed consent was essential; that's why it's present in the story. (Mary's age? Apparently not so much.) Consent was so important that a female character was provided with a voice -- not all that common in similar narratives of the time -- and is portrayed both as questioning this angelic visitation and as agreeing to carry out this mission.
Some narrative trouble is gone to here to show us Mary's question, respond to it, and to detail Mary's consent. Her consent has nothing to do with her age or her virginity or her legal status or the biomechanics of the Incarnation. Mary's consent, sought and received, shows us the nature of the relationship God seeks with human creation, and it models the relationship God desires to be followed among Her people.
Nicely put, Ohher.
I recently had my attention drawn to how frequently in the OT those who God chose to do something are portrayed as having to engage with him over it. Of course, Jacob is even re-named "Israel" because he struggled with God (another angel!). And I was intrigued to read some rabbinical commentaries on the Cain and Abel narrative, along the lines of "He (Cain) should have wrestled with God" which of course he didn't. So I entirely agree about the literary purpose of this segment concerning Mary.
(Martin - quote:
It's either that or we go the whole Spongiform theolopathy route.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye Eutychus, Jack's literary genius shines. But ... it's something he made up. Nobody has ever had such an experience from God. And, of course, God cannot possibly know what's going to happen tomorrow, being as it hasn't happened, especially humanly impossible things, without making it happen.
I fail to see what this has to do with a nice, simple lass like Mary?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
So you say. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Do you have a rational alternative?
Apart from "We just don't know."?
[ 14. November 2017, 19:06: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Sorry, that's not rational.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
An aside: Curiosity suggested that Mary was echoing or imitating Hannah's song. For her to have done so, she would have to be aware of Hannah's song. Is that likely? Would the average young Jewish woman of that time have such knowledge? This seems to interact with the question of Mary's age. The younger you want her to be, the less likely she is to have any specific education.
(Possibly more relevant) Of course, we know very little of Mary's age. She is old enough to bear a child and young enough to bear a child (although the latter is somewhat flexible in Biblical accounts). We know that she is still alive some thirty-odd years later. She is apparently younger than her cousin Elizabeth (who is rather old to bear her own child). Is there any other evidence?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'm shaking my head at your habit of simply asserting things as if your mere say-so was enough to make it so. Especially when you do this in the very teeth of opposing witness without so much as a "this is how I see it" to soften your blatant contradiction. Very often, it skates on the borderline of calling those who disagree liars.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It may be a pedantic point, but might we be better saying that Luke was echoing Hannah's Song by attributing the Magnificat to Mary in his Gospel account?
We are dealing with literary works here not yesterday's newspaper.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
The discussion of OT people arguing with God reminds me of an inspired book title I once saw, Here am I, Lord, send Aaron.
Moo
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What, it's my say so that tomorrow hasn't happened yet? Yeaaaahhhh.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
Oh, for pity's sake, Martin. Whatever are you on about? This is a story. It's no more than a story, nor is it any less than one. Most of the Gospel consists of stories, plus some correspondence thrown in for good measure.
Story itself -- originating perhaps among little human clans sitting around firepits in the vast ancient dusk -- is likely the origin of all human civilization. It's certainly the origin of Christianity: without the story -- the "good news" of the itinerant 1st-century rabbi -- Christianity would not exist today.
Are stories history? Perhaps, in the understanding of the original tellers, though not necessarily for us. Are stories science? Possibly, in the understanding of the original tellers, though not necessarily for us.
Yet truth can be found in every story -- even in a lie, which is how some ill-intentioned people work their deeds. Why ask for what the story does not offer, though? Settle for story; taken on its own terms, story will always be enough.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm replying to LC in similar vein Ohher. And postmodern as I belatedly am I agree with you. I'm toying with her too of course, because she actually doesn't believe that tomorrow has already happened, but she does believe that her partner at least was miraculously preserved which is on the same spectrum of identifying with Clive Staples' fairie story. Luke knew Mary of course.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm toying with her too of course, because she actually doesn't believe that tomorrow has already happened, but she does believe that her partner at least was miraculously preserved
Toying with other people posting in good faith is not what this board is about. I'm done talking to you here.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Where have I contravened Purgatory guidelines? Is that Hostly? Or ... junior hosting ... by a host?
Djwanna talk where it's warmer?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I said, I'm done. I'm not intervening as a host here because it would be conflict of interest, but I have paged my colleagues.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Martin, I've no idea what you are on about either.
You appear to be getting cross because people are reacting to your cryptic messages in ways that they're not supposed to.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
There is a fascinating, and deeply depressing, story about Roy Moore hitting the news. Among the many other implications of this bit is that Roy's alleged behavior was not approved of by his contemporaries.
The fact that some really . . . something people are now going to great lengths to demonstrate how little tolerance they have for anyone who would attack the pedophile says, that political hatred trumps (pun intended) normal morality says much about how divisive we have become.
Step back from that and consider how strident Roy is about the Ten Commandments and same sex marriage.
It has long been my belief that people who know in their hearts they are doing wrong go to great lengths in public to show how moral and good they are; defending poor, helpless God and all. This is Roy in a nutshell. (Again, pun intended.)
So, as to the prevailing social Moore's (ahem) in Roy's time, I think he damn well knew he was shattering social norms. He just puts on the public face of a fierce christian (pun intended) to make himself feel better about himself.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I'm not cross at all. Energized a tad maybe. There are multiple memes going on here. On the cusp of narrow eyed.
There is a spread of takes on Mary. Mine, in the words of Gamaliel, does both, all. I have a postmodern view of a second circle writer's account ("Luke's") of a first circle player, Mary. As I accept the Incarnation, the ultimate rock in the pond, I accept the ripples - a bad analogy as the closest to the event are the furthest - as static markers, standing waves, concentric circles of degrees of separation.
Luke wasn't there. I bet he knew Mary, who was. And she faithfully described the angelophany and all else. Accurately is another thing.
She wasn't abused, coerced, brainwashed against her will.
With me so far?
Eutychus introduced magic - why I'm not sure, I don't know, in the context of Mary's consent propounded by Ohher - because he clings to it in a dark warm corner. Don't we all. I utterly reject it. I utterly reject transpersonal psychology, mind-melding, possession by God. Or nudges. Even though I might have experienced them, one as recently as yesterday. Lamb Chopped also believes in magic and has defended that here defensively in the story of her partner.
And yes, therefore I insist that no one here, or for a millennium or two, who has even had Lewis' character Ransom's inner experience, that felt like predestination, has. No matter that it all happened as presaged. Not that that happened to Mary.
Because the next Planck tick hasn't happened. And when it does happen according to God's word, it cannot happen because He knew by magic. But by knowledge and power.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Given the generally understood meaning of ‘magic’, Martin60, your use of the word looks to me like an attempt to dismiss the views of Ohher, Lamb Chopped and Eutychus by caricaturing them in a way which seems to me to be obviously pejorative.
AFAICT, you are the only poster on this thread to use the word ‘magic’ so I think it behoves you to offer good reason for applying that word to the arguments others have made - if you are actually interested in furthering a discussion.
I for one can’t see anyone suggesting anything that implies ‘The use of rituals or actions, especially based on occult knowledge, to subdue or manipulate natural or supernatural beings and forces in order to have some benefit from them’ or ‘A specific ritual or procedure associated with such magic’ or ‘The supernatural forces which are drawn on in such a ritual’ nor even, really, ‘Something producing remarkable results, especially when not fully understood’. Perhaps you are working with a very idiolectic definition of ‘magic’.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
No that's fine. For a start. And yes, it is pejorative. The Yemen and the Rohinga could do with some couldn't they? But we are God's magic. And it's a poor show. But people will go on making claims that God has done magic for them and does magic Himself.
[ 15. November 2017, 14:22: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Since you insist.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Leave me out of this one, Martin, if you don't mind.
Thanks.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
Posit a god who lives outside of time, and we end up with a sort of Schroedinger's cat universe, in which everything has already happened, and in which everything has yet to happen. Fine.
Does this mean that outcomes which have already occurred cannot be diverged from if they also have not yet occurred?
That's not magic. That's "now."
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
This whole thing is a bit mind-bending.
If the deity knew what Mary was going to reply before asking, does she have any autonomy - is she giving true consent?
Assuming that the angel appeared when Mary was already with child on one reading I suppose it is fair to say that the asking for consent is a bit moot because it has already happened.
But then if Mary wouldn't have consented, would the deity have done it anyway? And would Mary have consented to anything that the deity told her to do (given that the deity is.. the deity and Mary is a human (and possibly one with a particular understanding of submission to the wishes of the deity))?
It's all a bit circular.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This whole thing is a bit mind-bending.
If the deity knew what Mary was going to reply before asking, does she have any autonomy - is she giving true consent?
Yes. But that is, of course, true of ALL our choices. Which is why (arguably) Open Theism is a much better paradigm for understanding the world that "classic theism" or Calvinism.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Assuming that the angel appeared when Mary was already with child on one reading I suppose it is fair to say that the asking for consent is a bit moot because it has already happened.
But then if Mary wouldn't have consented, would the deity have done it anyway? And would Mary have consented to anything that the deity told her to do (given that the deity is.. the deity and Mary is a human (and possibly one with a particular understanding of submission to the wishes of the deity))?
It's all a bit circular.
Well, yes, it's circular because of all the assumptions you are making above-- none of which appear in the text. Again, coming as this does in a context of the importance of affirming women's voices and believing their stories (i.e. the Moore case) it seems really, really odd that we have come to the point in this discussion where "consent" is seen as something other than taking women's actual, explicitly spoken words as what they actually mean.
[ 15. November 2017, 17:08: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
An aside: Curiosity suggested that Mary was echoing or imitating Hannah's song. For her to have done so, she would have to be aware of Hannah's song. Is that likely? Would the average young Jewish woman of that time have such knowledge? This seems to interact with the question of Mary's age. The younger you want her to be, the less likely she is to have any specific education.
From what we know of Elizabeth, married to Zechariah, a priest, it is likely that Mary comes from a priestly line and was aware of the books of the Old Testament. I'd have to go and dig further to find other references and links. It's ages since I read this
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There's the Orthodox tradition of Mary being raised in the Temple ... rather like some kind of novice nun ...
I'm not sure though what such speculation achieves.
The point, surely, is the theological one that Luke in marshaling/writing the material ('curating' it if we want to apply a contemporary phrase) was inviting his readers to draw those parallels - Hannah's Song / Mary's Song ...
Speculating as to whether Mary would have known sufficient Hebrew scriptures herself to make that kind of connection or parallel seems beside the point to me.
I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that she could have done ... but then, virgin births aren't exactly within the realms of possibility strictly speaking ...
We're talking about miracles if we take it literally, or some kind of deliberate parallelism between inherited Myth and contemporary/near contemporary events as far as the Gospel writers were concerned.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The United States has quite a bit of growing to do in this area. While most states now say you have to be at least 16 to consent, twenty-five states do not set a minimum age at which a person can get married, and eight more set it at an age lower than 16. Alaska and North Carolina, for example, set the age at 14. In New Hampshire, it's 13 for girls, 14 for boys Source
Another source shows that One group, fundamentalist homeschoolers, in particular, thinks it is perfectly normal for grown men to court teenagers.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm replying to LC in similar vein Ohher. And postmodern as I belatedly am I agree with you. I'm toying with her too of course, because she actually doesn't believe that tomorrow has already happened, but she does believe that her partner at least was miraculously preserved which is on the same spectrum of identifying with Clive Staples' fairie story. Luke knew Mary of course.
Martin,
When you are intentionally "toying" with other posters, you're not having a good faith discussion. You know better.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Sorry. To Lamb Chopped most of all and to the Hosts and all.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0