[Mrs. Don-o]

You ignore the third possibility again: that she was a consecrated woman.

I'm sure you can grasp the concept in theory, at ;east: you are so often a thoughtful commentator.

And you are not giving an adequate judgment of reproductive adultery. You didn't comment on whether "Ann's" choice violated the integrity of her marriage.

You think the whole story is ludicrous? Like it couldn't happen? My friend, we live in the Golden Age of no-sex motherhood. There are so-called clinics ---I knew of one years ago in Oakland, and there are many more today --- whose major "health service" consists of impregnating women who have never had sex with a man. Lesbian motherhood centers. And who knows how many are not lesbians, but married women, simply being impregnated outside of their marriages? it's certainly a reality today.

How does this escape your moral evaluation?

I'm sure you don't think it's OK?

[MHGinTN]

Ignoring the question? ... If GOD is required to use a gamete/female sex cell from Mary in your catholiciism calculus, where did the male gamete come from?

[metmom]

You ignore the third possibility again: that she was a consecrated woman.

Which doesn't make any difference in the God impregnating her makes Him guilty of sexual sin.

If she was consecrated to God then her marriage to Joseph made both of them adulterers.

Also, your argument about conception being tied to sex does not work well.

It seems to be presupposing that the only purpose for sex is procreation. That is NOT the only purpose for sex.

But that still does not make God an adulterer for impregnating a married woman.

[metmom]

And you are not giving an adequate judgment of reproductive adultery.

"reproductive adultery"?

And just where did that phrase come from?

[Elsie]

You ignore the third possibility again: that she was a consecrated woman.

Just exactly how does a consecrated woman function?

[daniel1212]

You ignore the third possibility again: that she was a consecrated woman. In which case it would have required the consent of her father, if the vow was made before betrothed to Joseph, or the consent of her husband if done after. And being continent in marriage would have likely been harder for Joseph than Mary. But it is simply not consistent with the character of the Spirit not to include this claimed exception to the norm, which He abundantly does even for much lesser characters (from age to strength to sinlessness,etc.), and thus states that Joseph knew her not till she bought forth her first born (in distinction from #2..). But Joseph receives hardly any credit, relative to the blasphemous hyper exaltation of the Mary of Catholicism far above that which is written.

There are so-called clinics ---I knew of one years ago in Oakland, and there are many more today --- whose major "health service" consists of impregnating women who have never had sex with a man. Lesbian motherhood centers. And who knows how many are not lesbians, but married women, simply being impregnated outside of their marriages? it's certainly a reality today. How does this escape your moral evaluation?

Because as explained, it is spurious analogy, for what man physically does is not the same thing as God supernaturally doing so, which is why He could use man to provide the material for a women's body, and could be both a creator-father to Mary as we her husband as Cath theology makes Him. To charge God with adultery under the premise that He was engaging in a form of a physical conjugal act is close to Mormonic theology.