You always seem to ask questions I never even think about..
Well, I think a lot about things.
But I never thought of it as rape? I literally just thought of it the whole time like God had a magic wand and all of a sudden Mary was pregnant.. and its funny that image in my head never left even when I was much older
Shouldn't the process of human reproduction apply to Mary, though? there had to of been a sperm and egg, does Jesus even have human DNA?

You always seem to ask questions I never even think about..
That's probably a good thing.
"Be safe, be happy, and don't let anyone make you afraid." David Coverdale

This message has been deleted.

To quote Mary: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word." That was her consent

So you're saying a fetus is not a parasite, therefore it was rape. Okay then.

Hunters have a perverted gun fetish, so sayeth a terrorist supporting kiddie-fiddler.

In another thread you said a fetus is just a parasite.
Indeed.
How is nonsexually transmitting a parasite into a woman rape?
How do you know it was non-sexual? don't you know the mysterious works of our lord and savior? I wonder how good in bed he is

God: Mary was pretty drunk, but she totally wanted it brah. *bro fist"
You're standing on my neck

Yeah, power dynamics wouldn't play a role at all where God is concerned. He and Mary were definitely of equal standing there.

Hunters have a perverted gun fetish, so sayeth a terrorist supporting kiddie-fiddler.

I am the Lords servant, Mary answered. May your word to me be fulfilled. Then the angel left her.
Sounds like consent to me.
Somehow that doesn't sound like "Lord, i'm ready for your D" to me

Poor you. Are you triggered again, little fella?
EDIT: Wow, you had to go back and add 'people of color'. Don't be transparent or anything.

Hunters have a perverted gun fetish, so sayeth a terrorist supporting kiddie-fiddler.

^ ^
Such is the mind of the naive theist who desires to justify his belief

LOL - Eddy thinks the reason the various translations and editions exist is because they are presenting vastly different versions contextually. LOL
Such is the mind of the naive secularist who desires to justify his unbelief.
He fails to understand that the different translations present the same Scripture in alternate styles of presentation. He fails to see that updates (edits) to versions/translations of Scripture are primarily required because of colloquial changes in language from one generation to the next.
Poor, deluded secularist.

Because you say so? LOL
Countless translations, edits, omissions, additions over thousands of years bringing us to dozens of various different contemporary volumes notwithstanding
yes.

http://tinyurl.com/gtb6nc2

Because you say so? LOL

I am the Lords servant, Mary answered. May your word to me be fulfilled. Then the angel left her.
Sounds like consent to me.
Trust me the books have been cooked

http://tinyurl.com/gtb6nc2

I am the Lords servant, Mary answered. May your word to me be fulfilled. Then the angel left her.
Sounds like consent to me.

Just thinking..
It would have been much easier for people to believe in the divine birth of Jesus if God had 'willed' Joseph pregnant instead of Mary.

Probably not if it's a God doing the raping.
Leda only needed some of Batman's Swan repellent.
warriorspirit
: if the penis is used as a pencil holder we'll incur a cost.

From a Christian perspective, why do you think Mark and John left out the birth narrative? Do you think they were not aware of it, or that they considered it unimportant?
Quite the opposite. It's because it had already been chronicled.
No one was ignorant to the account (John was an apostle & Mark would have gotten his information from Peter) and there are decades worth of time difference between Matthew & John.
John's message was more of an encouragement/enlightenment letter to an established Christian Church.
Luke was a more investigative accounting of Jesus' life with Acts serving as a sequal for the birth of Christianity.
Matthew was written for Jews & Mark for Gentiles who couldn't care less about how Jesus fits into Jewish prophecy (the primary reason Jesus' birth is so important). The highlights of Mark were regarding Jesus' ministry and his functions as the Messiah.
If this is Locke, then who's in there?

From a Christian perspective, why do you think Mark and John left out the birth narrative? Do you think they were not aware of it, or that they considered it unimportant?

There is a common misconception that the Gospels mirror each other. They do not.
In fact, they are distinctly different from each other with only a few unifying accounts.
In short, it's not unusual at all for the Gospels to have different parts of the story since they were written for different audiences.
If this is Locke, then who's in there?

Not complaining, just find it interesting. Even from a non-sceptic point of view, it's interesting to consider why certain ideas appear in some gospels and not others.

It's interesting that it doesn't appear in Mark
It's also interesting how some skeptics complain about all four gospels having four versions of the same narrative. And others complain about the gospels not having four exact copies of the same narrative.

It's interesting that it doesn't appear in Mark. I wonder if it was a conscious decision by Matthew and Luke (or perhaps a source they both drew from like the hypothetical Q) to ape the likes of Ovid (where Zeus regularly rapes women and impregnates them as a result) but with less brutality and token consent.
But aside from all that, I agree it is a problem for modern Christians since it suggests God, rather than the person in question, has final say over body autonomy.