Replies

I don't go with the God-rapes-his-reproductive-concubine paradigm.

Aren't you one of those who pouts a mighty pout if somebody comes along and re-words what you had said to suggest something yet else?

Don't look now, but you just did what you've complained others have done to your own words, and [Roman] Catholic "teachings" -- yourself having done so towards citation of scriptural text merely highlighted for emphasis.

Putting the words you wrote towards that passage of scripture Elsie posted is like spitting in the face of the authors of the New Testament.

Just where do you get off? Ah, forget it. I don't care where but do hope that it's soon. Take the portable, but still deep enough to be seriously mired within if not drowned in, buckets of Marianist quicksand you keep lugging around and spreading in front of people's feet, practically condemning them if they refuse to dive in headfirst --out of here.

The angel's appearance and announcement to her of what would happen, and her own acceptance and acquiescence (even though as she expressed "how could this be...?") to that is not the place of *cooperation* many make it out to be. If that were to be model for ourselves to follow, then you would be well off in something of a Calvinistic overall approach.

You like to think (and say) that Roman Catholicism is 'coherent', yet if Mary were to have been in position to not acquiesce -- if the Lord knew there was possibility that she could have, had she so desired -- then what of Mary being alleged born sinless -- entirely "preserved from sin" from moment even of her own conception?

Something's got to give way here. Both of these extra-biblical considerations which you oft espouse cannot logically be true at once. Not unless there possibly were others "Immaculately conceived" before Mary alleged was, and/or the Lord would need do that all over again with some other Israelite maiden had Mary refused to accept what the angel announced to her would occur...

Yet too, that she did yield herself does not necessarily mean that the dogma of Immaculate Conception for Mary herself is actually true --- even if the Creator knew well in advance of sending an angel to Mary (and I venture to say that He did know well in advance) what Mary's own personal reaction would be.

She was told that she would conceive, and somehow she knew this would not involve a man -- whether that be she sensed that this would occur immediately (I get a sense of that, beyond that being merely only possibility -- the scripture seeming to indicate that it must have occurred forthwith, Mary being pregnant upon arrival at her cousin Elizabeth's residence) and whether or not she may have been 'testing' the angel with her question too, being as Luke puts it in his explanation at time of the angel's announcement to Mary, Mary was betrothed (engaged to be married) to Joseph. It's ok by biblical standards to "test the spirits', in fact in NT text the faithful are instructed to. 1 John 4:1

Another problem with the way you chose to put things -- that it must be the way you say, or else it's "rape" of a "reproductive concubine"-- is that however the conception of Christ occurred, there was no sexual act -- that we know of. The Holy Spirit is spirit -- not having a physical body such as ours.

How could it be rape lacking physical penetration? Answer me that, or else retract the type of response you just gave to Elsie, forevermore.

Wymen's Studies majors at modern-day institutions of so-called "higher learning" may insist that men are rapists even if they don't even touch the woman, but hardly anyone else believes that kind of nonsense. If that doesn't work in regards to man, then how could that kind of thinking 'work' in regard to the Holy Creator? I'd ask for further explanation on that point, but prefer to not invite, encourage and give place for your usual sophistries...

See what happens when departing from what is written? Paul warned against that, you know? Do not go beyond what is written. I Corinthians 4:6