Posted on 12/22/2014 12:01:18 PM PST by C19fan
Powerful gods and demi-gods impregnating human women—it’s a common theme in the history of religion, and it’s more than a little rapey.
Zeus comes to Danae in the form of a golden shower, cutting “the knot of intact virginity” and leaving her pregnant with the Greek hero, Perseus.
Jupiter forcibly overcomes Europa by transforming himself into a white bull and abducting her. He imprisons her on the Isle of Crete, over time fathering three children.
Pan copulates with a shepherdess to produce Hermes.
The legendary founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus are conceived when the Roman god Mars impregnates Rea Silvia, a vestal virgin.
Helen of Troy, the rare female offspring of a god-human mating, is produced when Zeus takes the form of a swan to get access to Leda.
In some accounts Alexander the Great and the Emperor Augustus are sowed by gods in the form of serpents, by Phoebus and Jupiter respectively.
Though the earliest Christians had a competing story, in the Gospel of Luke, the Virgin Mary gets pregnant when the spirit of the Lord comes upon her and the power of the Most High overshadows her.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word." (Douay-Rheims translation)
Maybe I should of taken "Blank" Studies classes and therefore I am ignorant but that statement seems to me Mary is consenting to God's plan. Have to bless places for Salon so all these "Blank" Studies majors can earn a pay check outside of Starbuck's.
Vile stuff. I refuse to collect the Salon link, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they overlooked Ol’ Mo’s predilection for little girls...
Salon is too easy a target to pass up.
Why not ask Bill Clinton? He's religious. Used to carry around a bible as big as a phone book.
Repost of an AlterNet article to boot. Salon knows no bottom but has to plumb even fouler depths.
Two thousand years after Hebrew and Aramaic texts were assembled into the modern Jewish Bible, 1600 years after a Roman Catholic committee voted books in and out of the Christian Bible, 1400 years after Muhammad wrote the Koran (which draws heavily on the moral framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition), we still struggle with the question of female consent. Our struggle is made immeasurably harder by the presence of ancient texts that have become modern idols—texts that put God’s name on men’s desires.She blames the Koran and the abominations unique to it on “Judeo-Christian tradition”, obviously without having read the thing.
The most extreme example may be a document published by the Islamic State, outlining rules for the treatment of sexual slaves, rules drawn from the Koran. …
Don’t forget Slate.
Between Salon and Slate you can always find the most mind numbingly brain damaged ideas and thoughts ever to be sharted out the poop chute.
I swear I think some of these commentaries are made up. NOBODY could be that stupid.
Unfortunately - there are indeed many liberals who actually believe this fecal matter.
Ah, the loving of the season from Salon (aka slander) .com
The graphic is definitely needed on this thread. Thanks.
She’s a real sweetheart, until you mess with what makes her unique.
She still loves you, but legions of powerful incoporial intelligences, the least of whom could destroy the world with a thought, await her merest expression of pleasure—or dis-.
These people are sick. Luckily, we can leave them until last during our post-CW-II guillotine purges. (Democrats go first’ race batters second.)
We can have a pool on which liberal head bounces most.
Oops, race baiters, drat the auto correct.
That thing is dumber than a MSM “journalist”.
That wasn't a Bible.It was his *Big* Black Book.
Well, that is in the Bible. Though it is impeccably non-discriminatory since it assigns the husband the same responsibility to service his wife.
Don't want that responsibility? That's fine. Just don't get married.
I’m no biblical scholar, but I do not believe Mary was asked in advance, giving God permission before she was impregnated. That she happily consented once informed of the situation is in keeping with this article.
The atheists asserts,
” None of them has freely given female consent as a part of the narrative. (Luke’s Mary assents after being not asked but told by a powerful supernatural being what is going to happen to her, “Behold the bond slave of the Lord: be it done to me . . .”) Who needs consent, freely given? If he’s a god, she’s got to want it, right? That is how the stories play out.”
My response would be that of below, but which i cannot post due to inability to sign in, even by Google, or change or pword Ii had before, and surmise i am being blocked):
A typical idiotic militant atheistic/skeptical (the author obviously is in the light of the darkness other articles by her) take on Scripture, which per usual displays ignorance of context, culture and excludes whatever objective consideration that would militate against the desired conclusion of such an author with a manifest animosity toward faith and the God of the Bible.
In context event begin with the angel declaring that she was highly favoured, as the Lord was with her, and that she was blessed art thou among women. (Luke 1:28) Understand that this was not Miley Cyrus, but from all accounts a pious devout young women, who like other Hebrew women, considered giving birth to be The Blessing this side of eternity.
Yet Mary is not only told that she will give birth but that the One she will gift birth to will be known as the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. (Luke 1:32,33)
And being told this, and that this miracle man will be by a miracle birth, Mary’s response is not only consent, but abounding joy as seen by her glorious Magnificant.
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48)
Does Valerie really see Mary as some victim of a cosmic rapist, when in context she unmistakably and beatifically only affirms that she certainly consented to this as something most desirous, and as most wonderful, which God knew she would.
Why can’t/won’t Valerie’s simply admit that her bias (or income) prevents she from seeing what is obvious, and instead drives her to make desperate inane assertion?
And i am an evangelical, not a Cath. who makes the Mary of Scripture into an almost almighty demigoddess.
May God grant Valerie repentance unto life.
I like how liberals think Jesus and Mary are fictional characters, and yet they have information about them not found in the Bible. “Jesus was gay! Mary was raped!” Maybe it’s in the super secret King Brock Bible only passed out to social workers and organizers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.