How did God conceive Jesus? Did He rape Mary?

The answer to this question is a most emphatic NO.  God did not actually have sex with Mary to conceive Jesus.  The Bible clearly says that “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you,” (Luke 1:35, NKJV).  This is simply a ridiculous misunderstanding of the scripture.  Mary was a willing bearer of the Christ Child, as she said to Gabriel on his announcement of the Lord’s intentions “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word,” (Luke 1:38, NKJV).

First and foremost, it is important to realize that these kinds of accusations and questions regarding scripture by skeptics may not be based in a real desire to find the truth, but a desire to simply BE skeptical.  The best answer for atheists who make this claim is to simply point out their gross misconceptions about the nature of the conception and birth of Jesus Christ, namely that God had to physically force himself upon an unwilling participant.  Instead, God, through the amazing power of the Holy Spirit, brought forth the immaculate conception of Christ through Mary, His willing servant.

This answer provided to the ministry of http://www.gotquestions.org.

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “How did God conceive Jesus? Did He rape Mary?

Add yours

  1. Wow. Way to criticize, judge, and stereotype people asking honest questions about a pretty complex issue. How about: First and foremost, it’s important to realize that rape perpetuates devastating illness and the horrifying idea that a woman would be impregnated without her express consent (even in absence of penetrative sex) should be dealt with with compassion? As another thread commenter noted “What kind of example does that set?” How about: First and foremost there is nothing inherently wrong with human curiosity and questioning the the story of a “virgin birth” is anything but ridiculous? There are plenty of “first and foremosts” that should take first place to yours. Geez dude, back off!

  2. Keep in mind that your blog is the sixth (SIXTH) entry that any individual posing the question “Did God rape Mary?” to Google will see. Sixth. You are the Sixth. And you are calling all of these people ridiculous; you state explicitly they have no desire for truth. You are the sixth contact for any person asking this question, regardless of their religious background or life experience, and this is your offering to that person.

  3. While I understand your comments, and have edited my post to reflect that concern, I would say this: How complex of an issue is it really? It’s not even a question concerning the historicity of the virgin birth, which I have no problem with someone being skeptical about. The question posed to me was intentionally phrased in a demeaning and ridiculous way, as to connect the God of the Bible with Greek mythological deities, or to grotesquely personify the activities of the Lord here on earth. Please don’t be so daft as to assume that I don’t understand the horrors of rape, as I know women who have been and feel utter pain for them. And if I am the sixth post they see on the question, then good. Hopefully they see the truth and rather than being steered into some “red herring” on rape, they will understand that the issue is not a sincere questioning of the virgin birth (ie, is that really possible?) but was instead an insincere jab and mockery of a Christian doctrine. Understood?

  4. “may not be based in a real desire to find the truth, but a desire to simply BE skeptical.”

    How about the fact we just don’t like the abuse and sexual exploitation of the weak and powerless?

    I have read the story.

    If you believe that the facts of the insemination of Mary was anything but rape, I pray that you are never called upon a jury to decide the guilt of a powerful man who coerced a child to have sex with him through indirect intimidation.

    I am very sincerely convinced that subjecting a child to sexual acts, that of insemination being a sexual act, is in fact a form of rape. Particularly when done upon a child. Especially when down in the context of an extreme imbalanced power relationship.

    It is very convenient that you attempt to invalidate those who point out that your god raped, by any modern definition, a child.

    I suppose in light of the Penn State debacle, it is a far more pressing matter to explain away and provide plausible apologetics on behalf of those who you cherish against accusations of child abuse then to stand for the victims of abuse and challenge your unquestioning faith in this object of your adoration in the face of any moral human conscience,…….

    …. at least, that is how it is for some

    1. If you read the story, then perhaps you noticed that in fact it was not an “insemination.” God is not a body, but is spirit, and as such, there was no sexuality involved.

      Do me a favor. Please don’t try to connect God’s redemption of humankind to the sick and twisted sexual predatory lusts of Jerry Sandusky. The very fact that you could, for even an instant, connect those two, demonstrates to me that you know precious little of this “story” that you claim to have read. My advice would be to go back and read it again.

      1. Mind you;

        con•cep•tion/kənˈsepSHən/
        Noun:
        The action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived

        You will notice that penis or vagina has no mention here. That vaginal penetration was not involved makes it no less “sexual reproduction” then advanced reproduction treatments are.

        The concept of sexual reproduction covers a process not an action.

        Insemination, a process by which genetic information from TWO individuals is recombined to form a new information chain, which we call a new human life, is the process by which humans are “created”.

        Now then either Mary was provided with this information or was not.

        If not, than Jesus is not exactly “a” human. He would be a clone. That would make him a hermaphroditic monoclonal, chromosomal gender-ambiguous human clone. A clone of Mary. Basically biologically indistinguishable from Mary, but for being younger and apparently somehow of a different though likely highly ambiguous sex, as in fact sometimes happens.

        On the other hand it COULD be also that God, by some unknown means, and I will grant you here that argument, perhaps unknowable, but genetic means nonetheless, provided Mary’s ovum with the required missing information. Getting back to the issues,…… from a sperm,…. or from heretofore UNKOWN process a female egg is inseminated,… that is STILL INSEMINATION. To induce the process of pregnancy upon a human being by WHATEVER means is a form of SEXUAL REPRODUCTION.

        As such, the dynamics, politics, lawfulness, and MORALITY of such SEXUAL dynamics is well with all rights to be subject to critical thinking.

        I believe we should read the bible and take what the aruthors wrote to mean exactly what they meant, not whatever way we’d like to interpret it to be so as to be compatible with our modern shared moral systems.

        What I’d like to hear from you is how it is not “sick” “twisted” and “lustful” to essentially compelled by divine edict that a young female child conceive a son in furtherance of religious, or supposedly “celestial” interests?

        I’m sorry if this presents you an uncomfortable delimea. A conflict maybe ? Perhaps this should be a clue to you, like a belief in santa, or that thing you swear you remember happening a certain way but didn’t,… that perhaps there is something wrong with the up to now unquestioned self reaffirming narrative you’ve built up for yourself.

        See,… this is what happens when you apply the kind of critical thinking you use on a daily basis in the real world, to your beliefs,… which would otherwise not be a problem but for beliefs that require “special” thinking and go by “different” rules from reality, yet all the while attempts to pass of as something real. This to me is the biggest red flag that whatever such a belief is HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

        I can assure you vain attempts at suggesting that “maybe I just read it wrong” will not help you in truly resolving it, unless what you’d rather have empty platitudes,… like innocence, forever unquestioned. If you think that’s healthy, I leave you to that.

        Again,… if we say… that a man,… of an age,… and power,… even if well intentioned,… appropriates the young,… too young,… who are powerless,… voiceless,… and underdeveloped to even have their own sexual identify,… for his own sexual purposes,… however slightly, “gently”, or “lovingly” (his words),… is a gross moral WRONG,… then… how exactly is it that you square away a being of supreme power and authority, a being whom exercises such in the furtherance of his sexual reproduction in human form as somehow not also a moral WRONG ?

        The canard of “but… but… it’s a sprit,… it’s not like he put a penis in a vagina, so… it’s totally cool”… just does not cut it.

        Know what. I’ll put my money on that just like me,… it doesn’t cut it for you either. The only question I have left then is if so,… why,… what possible motive could you have defending the indefensible,… instead… of… simply… changing your beliefs regarding something you IDOLIZE ? Why ? Is keeping your beliefs “immaculate” THAT important?

      2. -If you read the story
        I’ve actually have taken the time to reread the scripture in question, which as been most illuminating.

        -it was not an “insemination.”
        No. It was not. You are correct. There is nothing in scripture to suggest such a thing, which would make sense, as they did not confabulate sperm with reproduction.

        -God… is a spirit
        Again, very true. When making this argument, at minimum I have to on the first level take what the bible says at face value.

        -sexual predatory
        But, that is the thing, and I do mean this sincerely, what do you believe should be my response when, through my reading, I am placed in a position where I encounter exactly this ( i.e. predatory sexual behavior ) in scripture? Is my a prior response to “re-frame” my “interpretation” ? I could see how that might work in one or another argument, but, big picture, of what use is scripture if it so that it can be reinterpreted to support any moral position? My idea of a moral frame work is not one that is inerrant ( for it would cease to be a moral -system- at all ) but one that provides a set of rules for arriving at specific conclusions. I further illustrate the point, I notice that here, and in many other responses to me, you’ve mentioned or brought in “outside context” as a sort of support in order to hoist a re framing of the question, which raises concern for me because it almost seems to suggest, one, that the bible can’t defend itself on it’s own moral system, that biblical “truth” then is contingent on a vast support system of historical contextualization, which ultimately brings home the point that a. we, us modern humans even, still do not even have a truly clear & accurate historical record to refer to, at best, b. what of everyone in the past who lacked modern archeology/linguistics/anthropology, from whence did they get their “historical contextualization” necessary to note that in fact one should not be having sexual contact with children? I mean, I do not mean to be disparaging, in all honesty, these are earnest questions I ponder in response to your arguments.

        -Do me a favor.
        Well actually, that is what I’m asking of you. As you do know more about this topic matter, I would appreciate a reasoned well argued articulation of your basic defense. Is there a way to defend the interaction between Mary and God? Perhaps? But I need specific, exact, and precise argument. Bore me 🙂 Really. The more detail the better.

  5. Mary was not raped or sexually abused by God in order to become pregnant with Jesus. We don’t know the exact mechanics behind it, but the bottom line is this: you set up a straw man to tear it down. Good job. Mary was the age of betrothal. If God “raped” her and she was too young, then I guess everyone in ancient times got raped. If you followed history at all, you would realize that it finally took the rabbis setting a legal minimum age of marriage at 12. So, yeah, I get your argument, but it doesn’t hold water for two reasons. I’ve already mentioned the reasons, so I’m not going to say them again. Bottom line: God didn’t rape Mary. He’s not a physical being. No matter how you want to look at it, He couldn’t rape her. So please, if you aren’t going to apply some critical thinking to the matter, take the argument elsewhere.

    1. See. It’s easy to say things. It’s another thing entirely to be specific about things, and it so important to not gloss over “those little details”.

      1.) Mary was not raped or sexually abused by God
      This is your position. What you mean to say by this, I should understand, is that upon looking at the material facts of the incident in question in an objective an unbiased fashion, a reasonable conclusion can be reached that supports saying that the behavior described IN NO WAY matches that of sexual abuse. Ok. That’s what we are talking about………. right? We are talking about WHAT HAPPENED and if THAT is sexual abuse or not,… right? So…. lets read on…

      2.) Mary was the age of betrothal.
      Which was ? And,… I’m curious to see that you use the metric of the ancient “age of betrothal” aka age a girl could be SOLD as property redeemable as a “wife” in “marriage”, (if such bondage could be called that) upon payment of deposit, ( in which case you may not be aware that IN THE BIBLE it is 3 years of age and up!!! )… instead of “age of consent”, which very importantly focuses on the issues of consent, and the recognition that a child under the power of an adult CANNOT HAVE it. It is extra odd that you would use this standard, yet take up arms when such a standard is compared to modern day sexual predators. But then,… I don’t recall anyone talking about “age of betrothal” in the Sandusky trail. In determining sexual abuse of minors, do we agree that we based first our determinations on the material facts, namely, that of youth and power imbalance such that the victim is not considered able to freely give consent to sexual behavior which is exploitative of them by those with age and power enough to know better? Right out the gate, already, your use of this standard is exceedingly troubling given what we are trying to determine, and it almost seems to suggest,… “well if child abuse was legal then, it was morally ok”. But,… you are not really saying that… are you?

      3.) If God “raped” her and she was too young, then I guess everyone in ancient times got raped.

      Yes. Exactly. My point entirely. I’m confused though by why you chose to make such a statement in the form of a question. And further, while here your reasoning is direct, simple, and self evidently true elsewhere it seems you go through a lot of trouble attempting to obfuscate this same clear self evident point that should be a conclusion that is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone. It’s a very simple formula;

      Q- Was she “too young”
      A- yes
      Q- Did he sexually reproduce with her?
      A- yes
      Q- Is sexual reproduction (by WHATEVER MEANS) with a girl who is “too young” a form of rape
      A- yes

      Sexual reproduction ( the induction of pregnant of YOUR SON in the body of female ) is a type of SEXUAL TRANSACTION. Having sexual transactions OF ANY KIND, even JUST TALKING ABOUT IT, is 1. highly illegal, 2. highly immoral.

      Period.

      I feel very,… very odd being in the position of being the one on the soap box intransigently holding fast to stern, dogmatic unyielding moral standards of conduct, whereas the theist is the one attempting all kinds of fancy rationalizations and attempts at abstracting plain as day immoralities such that they are no longer immoral, “if you just look at it the right way”. Honestly I’m quite confused by this.

      4.) If you followed history at all, you would realize that it finally took the rabbis setting a legal minimum age of marriage at 12

      I don’t know what “history” you are referring to, but IN THE BIBLE a father can “offload” his daughter for profit to 3rd parties for the use as a personnel sex slave at any point above the age of 3. I… think… you’ve… only read the “nice” parts of the bible.

      4.b) Which… then… is exactly the kind of moral framework you’d EXPECT from a being that finds it perfectly “ok” to engage in sexual processes with a submissive, obliged underage girl later on. It actually would be entirely consistent with his moral conduct so far.

      5.)I’ve already mentioned the reasons, so I’m not going to say them again.
      ???? “So long as you don’t have a psychical body, and dont use a penis, inducing pregnancy on a willing but underage, compliant religious follower is ok” Boy,… you seem in an awful rush to not have to very clearly work THIS argument out. And of the interest of the girl in question? Is there, at anytime, a point where we contemplate or weigh the merit of her rights? If it’s ( not only immoral but..) illegal to even speak to an underage girl as an adult man about wanting her to be the mother of your child, and of your desire to conceive such with her, BY WHATEVER MEANS,… EVEN MAGICAL! how much more illegal, immoral and reprehensible would it be for such a man to SUCCEED in his desire? But than god is not a man, you might say. Granted, but then it sure does bring up the question of “so you are saying that god is given an unlimited moral mandate to engage in sexual reproduction with humans by whatever means free of all moral judgments” ? What would compel you to worship such a thing?

      5.b) I think it’s being lost here, but let me just make it clear; I’m not accusing god of having sex (penetrative vaginal intercourse) with mary. I’m accusing him OF RAPE. You DO NOT have to have a penis, or insert it anywhere, or for that matter touch anyone, or even be physically present to RAPE someone. I think the problem you are having in understanding my conflict here is that your definition of rape is kindof “what you see in TV” instead of what the actual REAL dynamics of it are in real life, in real peoples lives, such as the victims of sandusky. It is the same kind of retroactive whitewashing, obfuscation, and back bending apologetics that ended up shielding a monster, and I see that the instinct to protect ones cherished beliefs above questioning them in light of conflicting moral gridlock is a powerful one.

      5.c) He’s not a physical being.
      Now,… please,… can you elaborate on why this EXEMPTS god from being held responsible for rape? Or is it as simple as “it’s not rape if GOD DOES IT” ?

      6.)No matter how you want to look at it, He couldn’t rape her.
      How not? “Couldn’t” ? Thats an awfully odd thing to be saying. When exactly did the conversation change from “did he” or “didn’t he” to theoretical talk of the capacity for certain classes of beings to engage in such behavior. Whats with this rush to distance the conversation as far as possible from the personal actions of this individual being and “de-personalize” the dialogue about holding such a individual accountable for his actions. But lets get this clear; you are saying that the inherent nature of god ( OMNIPOTENT ) very strongly LIMITS! him from a whole wide range of action ? Or maybe I’m reading you wrong. Maybe what you are saying is that while IF A PERSON DOES IT, IT WOULD BE CALLED RAPE,… if we see GOD DO THE SAME THING, since “he is not a physical being”, we DON’T CALL IT RAPE,… we call it something else, and we worship and praise it as a “beautiful” thing.

      Recap;

      1) Now. Lets go back to THE FIRST THING YOU SAID.

      “Mary was not raped or sexually abused by God”

      Anyone reading this would think that what you are talking about is the fact that you attest that a certain individual did not do a certain class of actions to a certain person.

      What they would not think is that what you mean by this is not that is isn’t rape, or abuse, or sexual, (which it is) but that since God DID IT, and he has no physical form, that then this nullifies the fact that is is rape, abusive, and sexually exploitative of a child.

      It would have been enough, perhaps, for you to show me how maybe I “read it wrong”. Instead you chose to absolve god from any moral judgment whatsoever. This is a dangerous line of thinking that abdicates our very own capacity for moral thought at all.

      I can understand how tempting it is to make a statutory claim that god can or can’t do this or that certain action such as to exempt him from critisisum, but suggesting that child abuse suddenly isnt simply based on WHO is doing the abuse is an unsustainable premise.

      2) critical thinking

      The critical in critical thinking implies the predisposition to criticize one’s own beliefs.

    2. On just a side topic;When you impregnate someone’s wife to be, the very minimal, least, thing you should do is at the very least meet the husband face to face and tell him what happened. Minimum. No messenger. No proxy. No leaving it up to the poor girl to sort on her own. No sending your best bud, to explain things, when and only when the husband is about to anull the marriage. You meet the man, in person, face to face, tell him what happened and whats going to happen, and work it out like grown men. That is character. At least that is what I was thought. I cannot phantom how anyone can categorize such spineless, self serving, selfish, and exploitative conduct. as anything other than the most most base kind of conduct man does. I’d rather worship a god who’s followers and writers sometimes made #### up leaving us to sort the bs from the real out ourselves, than that whatever is written is innarant when it present the plainly repulsive as something I should admire. My morals are not made of such water stuffs that I’d change the cup that holds them for the sake of not inconveniencing my conscience. Again just a sidebar, just wanted to inject a personnel note here, no need to reply, thanks.

    3. It was quite some time since I’ve last spoke on this topic, and in that time I’ve come to grasp a more nuanced take on this subject, which I think underlines the fact that human nature is very complex and ultimately we are best served best by calm contemplation of these questions before us. If you allow me, I’d like to discuss some points you have brought up. Thank you for your patience, and apologies for any past shortness in response.

      -Mary was not raped
      What definition are we using for rape? Modern western criminal law? Sumerian Law? Judaic? Sharia? Communist? Libertarian? I posit that before getting to “definitional” problems, we agree on a standard to test against. Perhaps we can agree on a metric of “reasonableness” i.e.; what a average contemporaneous common person in our same community would “reasonably” define rape as. This would include as a subset western criminal definitions but also furthermore would include more nebulous “gut feeling” non-technical definitions of rape or things almost close to the same thing. Where context matters, it can be mentioned and highlighted, but for most purposes I think this approach allows us the tools necessary to tackle this question in a reasonable fashion to common agreement.

      -sexually abused
      Now here is something more workable. This is a far more specific definition, no doubt, because of it’s modern origin. Here we have more definite metrics to measure against, and in this instance I will refer to the western criminal definitions when making comparison regarding specifically sexual abuse. Again, this is just establishing what it is we are talking about. I’ve found that slowing down and being granular with our definitions is an effective way of sorting out misunderstandings.

      -We don’t know the exact mechanics behind it
      We do not. This is an important point I’ll refer back to. For now it’s enough to note that you are correct, we don’t know much about the actual physical mechanics.

      -Mary was the age of betrothal
      I won’t contest semantics / linguistics, I’ll cede this point as valid on face value. Now, to be honest, this should even from the start raise some red flags. Namely, why “age of betrothal” and not, say, age of consent? Age of consent laws in the entire world right now ball park for most countries runs in the range of 15-18. Betrothal is a concept with a long history. The “term of art” ( Age of Betrothal ) classically, from a wide spectrum of different cultures, ranges from as young as 6 – 7 up to an 12-15. While we can debate the strict bounds, I feel I can say that no matter what ultimately the specific “legal” age, there is, as just common human nature, a difference in category between a 8-13 year old and a 15-19 year old. What I mean by difference is deep physiological differences which are empirically observable, and independent of cultural upbringing.

      -history…. rabbis setting a legal minimum age of marriage at 12
      A good thing, a noticeable improvement from where it was as early as 3 in the old testament. Now, I just previously mentioned common modern age of consent laws. One thing I’d like to point out is that these laws are not, well, “just laws”. They are not just one more set of seemingly arbitrary jurisprudence for the sake of societal decorum. They are not just some obscure highly technical, rarefied, bureaucratic regularity minutia, which one could hardly refuse to offer some form of slack. Laws regulating sexual consummation in relation to age come from a deep, basic —moral— framework, that illuminates deep questions in human sexual behavior and interrelation. They address existential questions of gender dynamics and disparity of power, in particular sexual power. These are, I suggest, important questions. That one or another party is strictly one or another specific technical age is a debate that sidesteps the more critical matter of the deep moral implications the wide body of sexual regulations regarding consent aspire to address under law. “But she was 12, and it was ok then” is an insufficient answer to very serious questions of sexual abuse. What I’m getting at is that the “molestation” part of molestation is not whether a party is a specific age or not, the underlying mechanics of this moral framework is the implication of abusive sexual power of one over another. This is so much so in fact that as a matter of law, the are multiple situations where sexual contact between even fully consenting adults is criminalized, statutorily, simply based on vast social/sexual power differentials. ( teacher-student, military etc. ) And even in cases where it escapes the purview of legislation, say in the case of cult leaders having sex with their congregants, society at large ( I would say rightly ) reproaches such conduct. I point this out because I think it’s important to note that people do have an inherent sense of morality. Even people, like us suppose, with differing points of view, do have a common sense of humanity, of empathy. That -any- sexual conduct, or even the implication of, between children and adults should be immediately under the most relentless critical scrutiny is a position, whatever the eventual determination, that I believe you would agree is reasonable under most circumstances, and I hope, informs you as to why anyone would take an interest in debating this topic thoroughly.

      1. Thank you for a very reasonable and well thought out reply. I do agree, many times issues like this need to be hashed out in a well-thought out manner, so thanks for working with me here :).

        Let me start off by saying that I agree with where your morality is coming from. I am very understanding that there is a power issue in sexual consent that has to be thoroughly understood before making a judgement call. Two things come to mind when I think about this issue.

        First, I think that our society has experienced a bit of a “lengthening” of the growth period in life. By that, I mean this: We have created a time period in life, called adolescence, that prior to the past fifty years, didn’t really exist. Prior to that time, it was understood that once you stepped across the threshold of some age in your very early teens (usually 13), you were suddenly an adult. I think a large factor in that is the difference in society from then until now. Before 300 years ago, living to 60 was an accomplishment. Life was difficult for all involved. I’m not entirely sure here, but I think the average life expectancy in the ancient world was somewhere around 30-40 years. So, early marriage was almost a “necessity”, though I’m loathe to call it that because I read my 21st century views into the biblical narrative. As a matter of fact, I know that probably no 12-14 year old in our society is ready for marriage. For that matter, I don’t know of any 18 or 19 year olds for that matter ready for marriage. Of course, life has drastically changed, the number of choices in careers have changed, the sense of urgency/necessity to quickly marry and reproduce before one is eaten by wild animals/killed by warring clans/killed by some terrible disease/killed by self neglect/ etc has been greatly reduced. So, we are ready far slower than the average person would have been 2000 years ago to act in an adult manner. I see it myself in the way my grandfather grew up versus the way I grew up. So, there are some real cultural differences at work here. So while I would absolutely AGREE FULLY that there is a world of difference from your average 8-12 year old vs your average 15-19 year old, I would also say that even comparative to the ancient time frame, there is a vast difference in how prepared children were for life back then. The reality is that your average Call of Duty playing, Bud Light drinking (I’m not making fun of Bud Light because I’m super Christian and don’t drink, I’m making fun of it because it is a woefully inferior beer to a good craft brew and I spent most of my college years de-braining myself with it) 22-25 year old is probably as equipped to survive own their own as the typical 8-12 year old in biblical times. I am mostly jesting, but still, hopefully the point is made. 🙂

        And I’m just going to hop around on some things over your last two comments that stood out that I’d kind of like to throw in here.

        -it was not an “insemination.”
        No. It was not. You are correct. There is nothing in scripture to suggest such a thing, which would make sense, as they did not confabulate sperm with reproduction.

        Not actually true. If you review the story of Judah (somewhere around Genesis 34-36), Jacob’s fourth born son, he had two sons die because they “spilled their seed on the ground.” It’s a long story, but basically Judah’s oldest son died. It was tradition then that the next oldest marry the widow, but that the first son would count as the oldest son’s son. Not feeling like being ripped off a child, Son #2 “spilled his seed.” He wound up dead too. In addition, there were laws against doing such later in Exodus (I think somewhere around chapter 21-24). So, the ancient Hebrews were most DEFINITELY aware of sperm and what it did.

        And (I’m jumping like crazy here, I’m in the middle of trying to finish a mobile app I’m developing), when I say that scripture is taken “out of context”, I’m basically saying that we aren’t really reading the Bible for what it is, which is, in essence, a collection of books all aimed at the mission of explaining God’s story with us, His interaction with us, and His plan for redeeming a broken creation that He loves. So yeah, there is going to be some historical context, and it’s frustrating sometimes. I think, however, that as we read scripture, the historical context becomes a very secondary thing, by which I mean this: I become less concerned with understanding an “age of betrothal” or an “age of consent” than I do with understanding that sexuality is a gift given to us by God that is meant to be used within the confines of a marital relationship which should only be entered into once one has prayerfully considered who to marry, has consistently placed their decisions before God, and has allowed themselves to be directed to a final decision. I know of absolutely NO ONE, who upon asking God for guidance in selecting a wife/husband, has been led to a 5 year old in downtown Nazareth for their life partner 🙂 . I hope that makes sense. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that while the historical context is important, it becomes secondary when we read scripture and get to the heart of what God is communicating, as that transcends temporal boundaries.

        I hope that makes sense. I can say more, but I’m crazy rushed right now. Feel free to keep the dialog going 😀

  6. So glad to see that in jumping on your moral high horse, you totally read the Bible in such a way that you read the content you want into it. How about this: You give me scripture and verse. You seem to feel like you have read the Bible enough to be a scholar on it. When you are done, please present me your documentation and understanding of the concept of slavery and being “sold into slavery” in an ancient near eastern context. Otherwise, I’m having a conversation with someone who hasn’t taken the time to research and is instead reacting with nothing more than half-understanding of the Biblical context and an ax to grind against theists. I would imagine from your statement above you have no concept at all of the context and concepts surrounding servitude from a biblical standpoint, and until you do, it is fruitless to continue this debate because you will continue to defend your position from ignorance, and it will do no good for me to fully explain this.

    One thing that I would say is this: the only thing that this situation has even remotely in common with a sexual encounter is Mary being pregnant. There are a host of other things that come along with a situation of sexual abuse which are noticeably absent. Did you read Mary’s reaction? She was joyful. How many times does that happen in rape? There was no essence of coercion, other than what you describe as a “power imbalance.” I get what you are trying to say, but you are kind of proving my original point, that most people who react violently to this are simply wanting to BE skeptical. You have no real knowledge of history that proves otherwise, and you are evaluating the matter entirely based on your own opinion, perspectives, and western proclivities that betray an utter lack of understanding of both the biblical text and the context in which it was written and occurred.

    1. Ok.

      Though,… I always find it funny how theist are the first to squeal “context context!” the moment they are pinch for crystal clear answers. But,… if you must…

      …I’ll oblige your request.

      Still,.. I’d like to note this; YOU accuse me of “…totally read the Bible in such a way that you read the content you want into it.” Unless I’m mistaken, please correct me by all means, you mean to say that doing is,… IS A BAD THING ? I just want to slow down, and really go over this with a fine grain and make sure we are understanding each other. Again, feel free to correct any confusion I might have, I’d appreciate it.

      Now. I’m a fair man. I’d like to give you an opportunity before I dig up all the ref. to change this accusation. I wont hold it against you. Take the time.Think it over.

      Thanks.

      Do you have a preference for translation or langue? Let me know 🙂

      Just to be clear, let me see if I’m reading you correctly, let me know if I’m wrong here in anyway, please;

      1. She was joyful.
      2. There are a host of other things that come along with a situation of sexual abuse which are noticeably ABSENT.
      3. How many times does that happen in rape? (? how does it, I will find out ?)
      4. no real knowledge of history that proves otherwise
      5. evaluating the matter entirely based on your own opinion, perspectives, and western proclivities = common ordinary morals ( or not,… let’s see )

    2. Fair enough.

      Just to confirm;

      6. God’s ways are not your ways or my ways.
      7. Nor does He have to do things the way you would do them.
      8. Rape has a sexual connotation that was totally ABSENT. (again please note the emphasis. Am I understanding you correctly?)
      9. DIFFERENCE between sex and Mary becoming pregnant through the Holy Spirit
      10. [THIS] IS A BAD THING ?” —-> Uhh, yeah, it is. It’s called propaganda. ” Read the text and take out what it ACTUALLY says. ”

      Again,… there is no rush here. If there is anything in 1-10 that you feel are off, or inaccurate please feel free to correct me.

      Also, just to be clear,… you ALSO want me to include ref. to local historical context. Now,… I’m asking,… a you… sure about this. Just to repeat,… you want me,… to provide hisotircal contextualization that we should infer INFORM upon specific biblical passages? I want to be clear on this,… are you saying that “historical context is a valid place from were we can derive environmental context in the narratives mention, as well as demonstrate how such narratives actually functioned within society at that time” ? Please let me know we this is accurate. I mean, it would be totally fine to just limit me expressly to what is in the bible. I wouldn’t call that foul. Just saying… are you sure about this one?

    3. -Bible in such a way that you read the content you want into it
      Well isn’t that the problem? After all, I mean, If I do, I do so with good intention, or even at least, purely for the entertainment value. What of those who take my same argumentation, but with ill will and premeditation to justify aberrant behavior? “You read it “wrong” ” seems rather insufficient a counter argument in that case. After all those not the bible have the necessary internal moral tools to address these kinds of questions? Why is a tour through anthropology/linguistics required in response to basic questions of fundamental base human nature? I would have thought that would be the bible’s “home turf” as it were.

      -You give me scripture
      Ok.

      -Luke 1:26-38
      This is just one example, but I think it’s sufficient to demonstrate the real “hard problems” I’m trying to highlight. Lets go over this very slowly.

      -The angel went to a virgin promised in marriage to a descendant of David named Joseph. The virgin’s name was Mary.
      Right here we have 2 problems. Notice the word “promised”. It’s important that it’s not “about/going to be married”, “engaged”, “considering marriage with” etc. etc. Are we to suggest -she- did any of that “promising”? I think not. In which case, it should go without saying, raises very serious questions of autonomy, we can at least agree, being compelled into a sexual role, for the rest of your life, with someone, with no input whatsoever, goes quite against human individuality, and is I suggest a deep subversion of human autonomy which any common person would find objectionable. That is without even considering age, or gender, which, when all put together presents a very alarming implication of gender based sexual subjugation. Which is exactly what one would expect, no surprise there, after all, this was very much the modus opprandi for most of human history. Note, here I place no blame on god, this had nothing to do with him. This was simply human culture at the time. In case you missed that,… -human- culture. Human culture was the one that dictated that woman were essentially a commodity, which could be bought, sold, and speculated in, in exchange for all kinds of payments and barter arraignments. Notice here also the repetition of “virgin”, twice no less, which drives home the emphasis of her basic relation to Joseph ( one of a predominately sexual nature ). The reason I point out that this was human culture is that its important to remember that we are not bond by their norms, we are well within rights to look at human culture and find areas of great injustice and reform our ways, which we have done. The passage of time however does not make the previous injustice any less so, and this is something that is crucial to grasp.

      -“You are favored by the Lord! The Lord is with you.”
      There’s nothing “wrong” here, but, it’s worth nothing that yet again she is not being referred to directly as an autonomous human being, but basically informing her of realities “on the ground” as the saying goes, for which she has little or no control over ( i.e. She does not chose who the lord favors )

      -“She was startled”
      This should give any reader pause. Startled? Why? By an angel? They did happen, however rare. More over, elsewhere in scripture we are informed of her “grace” and superlative spiritual transcendence, after all, it is why she was chosen of all extant human females. One can assume she knew it was an angel speaking with her ( her lack of question this is a clue ), and this particular angel was bearing great news for someone who happened to be “full of grace”. Yet,… in the absolute very first interaction between her and god, the reaction is fear. Fear. Now, putting, “into context” as they say, what are we talking about here. A teen. 12, 14, max… 16? Female. In a an age where being so is little more than being property, a little better than a donkey or cow, but not much more, at best, in cash value mind you. A faithful follower of her faith. Someone in awe and “fear” ( the classic kind ) of her god. And yet, here we have, even before any of the meat of the incident being discussed, the reaction is “startledment”. I mean, I’m not saying this is categorically problematic, right, sure, we can argue how maybe everything is above board, but honestly, with even form the onset this entire scenario is already full of problems with autonomy and consent.

      -“The angel told her, “Don’t be afraid, Mary. You…”
      So someone is startled, by your own admission, and you proceed to -tell- , not ask, but tell, i.e. decree “what shall pass”. This hardly seems an invitation to consent. I point out that in not a single one of the next few lines from this angel was there any space for Mary’s input. Again, I’m not reading anything to even imply Mary’s proactive participation. Again, back to the basic debate we are having here, regarding questions of sexual dynamics, and potential abuse, the complete lack of any consent here on the part of Mary is troubling. To repeat the theme here, this is a matter about sex, one of the most basic existential and foundationally defining components of our human experience. The absence so far in this scripture of any conception even of consent would be profoundly unacceptable in our modern social space, I’m sure you would not argue otherwise, and reading the text, red flags should start being raised.

      But ok… So maybe she was taken by surprise. Surely, now that her god, via her messenger has spell out his plan for her, maybe she gets it now and chimes in about how enthusiastic she is at the prospect… right?

      -“How can this be? I’ve never known man.”
      Twice we have heard from Mary, and twice she has distanced herself. This is not how a willing and enthusiastic participant responds. More so when we again remind ourselves that Mary is a faithful believer of some note. If anyone would be expected to positively respond to this message, one could hardly consider a better candidate. But in this questioning exclamation, I believe is a far more subtle point. Lets rewind for a second. Remember the angel is telling her things that will happen. So in her question she is not merely pointing out incredulity to the physical mechanics of the “act”, but on a deeper level here is expressing a kind of sexual autonomy ( i.e. ” I’ve never had sex,, and am not planning on having sex with anyone who is not my husband, wtf are you talking about fella? ” )

      -The Holy Spirit will come to you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
      I don’t think I need to spell out the problems with this.

      -Therefore, the holy child developing inside you will be called the Son of God.
      And where do we have consent for this before? Can you see how this is a problem? I don’t want to get into the weeds about when what dates exactly with what notice,… I’d rather sidestep that and deal with the larger question here. Given the context, her culture, age, gender, societal expectations, I argue that it is reasonable to say that Mary is in a social position within which she is the least likest person to be able to advocate for her autonomy, and her comes his otherworldly harbinger of a power beyond even her comprehension stipulating future events as present fact regarding her sexuality, again, with 0% of her input on the matter. In fact, the act is accomplished even before she had opened her mouth. Maybe she gave God consent in her mind? I mean, it’d be nice to speculate that, but if that was the case why does the bible not mention this, and why should the bible depend on -speculation- in other to not seem to be immoral? I hope you can start seeing what I’m seeing. Again, I’m troubled by yet again the complete lack of consent, or even the implication that any such thing exists or is required at all is very alarming.

      – “I am the Lord’s servant. Let everything you’ve said happen to me.”
      It should be noted that this is what she says -after- being informed that her body had already been appropriated by a tremendously powerful supernatural entity who also hold immense sway in her society for whatever use he had for it. There are all kinds of problems with this context in regards to a valid formulation of consent. But when just the language is problematic. “I am the Lord’s servant” is not an expression of participatory consent, it’s and abdication of autonomy. Servants by definition are such that they subvert their personal authority and transfer it into another. Again, I don’t want to get into the weeds about linguistic jujitsu about different ways it can be or not be referring to slavery, the point stands, when it comes to sex, when it comes to formulating a relational dynamic with sex, that is not an affirmative consent to said sex. Even if, lets say if you argue “well, it’s not sex persay…”, even in the realm of bodily autonomy, the concern still stands. Again, notice the language used. An proclamation addicting voluntary will. Then in passive voice an declaration of “suffer to” ( as was the archaic use of let in that time ) the aforementioned. This is not an affirmation of allowance, in fact it is a surrendering to circumstance, which I point out is not surprising as this was an admirable social response in Mary’s time to calamity. It is in a sense a version of “let what happen what will happen” when spoken in the face of some adversity. One would be hard pressed to interpret such an utterance as consent or allowance to anything calamitous happening.

      -“Then the angel left her.”
      That’s it. No space for her affirmative input. In fact we don’t get any further correspondence to this matter from Mary in Luke.

      In summation I hope you can see where I’m coming from.

      Did god or his angel forcibly have sexual intercourse with Mary? No. Did god rape Mary? Well, that’s actually hard to define exactly, it’s hard to make an exact determination with the scant information provided, and considering the spiritual nature of the conception. Is Immaculate conception rape? Is it sex? It would be a hard case to prosecute, I can admit that.

      The point I’m making is that ultimately if through linguistics and technical legal argumentation the debate can be made one way or another, the greater point is if not exactly rape, than the narrative as told is something very much close to it. If not in a final sense accessible to criminal culpability, in the greater context, it is reasonable to find her conception to be morally reprehensible.

      The lack of affirmative consent on her part, the lack of any attempt at obtaining it -should- be troubling.

      See that is the point I’m making.

      The sexual dynamics employed by god to arrive at his celestial imperative do not reflect what a reasonable person would find to be in line with basic humanity, empathy, or greater justice.

    4. -You have no real knowledge of history
      See. This. This is my biggest problem with your position. It presents the argument that depending on “historical context” very basic frameworks of morality can be radically different. That somehow the systems of moral determination in scripture are “lensed” through human cultural constructs.

      This is terrifying.

      If in the past humanity engaged in the wholesale use of females from the ages of 6-12 as sexual property, and all of this was well within the acceptable norms of celestial law as provided by us through intermediaries directly from a greater supernatural power, than what stops this kind of behavior from repeating again?

      Human culture?

      In your moral framework, absent cultural guidance, there could conceivably be a time when this is the holy norm? Removed from history, a society is left with the bible and primitive instinct and intuition will resort to this same appropriation of females as property and this would be “ok” with god as far as he is concerned?

      That is troubling to say the least.

      Where I to be theistic, I would tend on the side of a inerrant being provider of unchangeable moral absolutes. Such an being who’s edicts could encompass very shade of barbarity under the sun given any particular historical context goes against the idea of god as a moral system. In fact such a being would be amoral from the perspective of his subjects, given the comings and goings of time.

      -biblical text and the context
      Does biblical text mean different things in different contexts?

    5. -We have created a time period in life, called adolescence, that prior to the past fifty years, didn’t really exist.
      Not exactly true, but I’ll deal with that later…

      – it was understood
      What people understood and what physiologically is the case is not the same thing. In this instance 13 is not an adult by empirical demonstrable metrics. This is crucial because it means that we are not dealing with “back then these were adults”, we are dealing with children, who are obliged by society to enter into adult dynamics in spite of their total lack of capacity for equitable participation.

      -average life expectancy… 30
      This is a common mistake. Average means something specific in statistics, it does not mean “most” people lived till 30. Most people lived far longer, into 50-60 years. It was not uncommon. The problem is alot of people died in birth, and even more in early age therefor the -statistical- average is 30. The early deaths skew the statistics such that they appear as most people living till 30, which was -not- the case. If we took a time machine you would find tons of old people much to your surprise. This is another important point because it dismantles this idea of “life expectancy urgency” that compelled people to avail themselves sexually of children. There was no such “urgency”, its a fabrication post-fact. The biggest clue to this being the case is the subtle detail… only -females- 8-13 were “considered adult”. You’ll notice that male children of that same age were not inducted into “full adulthood”. 8-13 year old boys where declaring marriages, or making complaints to the king, or starting property claims on slaves. Of course not. Because they were children, and even in their own barbaric time they were more than aware. But being a male dominated culture, females were used as sexual currency, who’s sole purpose was sexual preservation until delivery to a bidder. For sexual purposes.

      -point is made
      I mean, I can be fair and say big picture, I know that line of argument and ok, yes, there is some sense to what your pointing out. It’s not exactly untrue. But I think thats were the problem is because it’s very tempting. Sure, children were placed in different social pressures, many of which compelled them to “grow up fast”. But that doesn’t change the injustice of it much as it does not change that they still, objectively, were children. That one has “grown up fast”, in “hard times”, and matured, far above even what we consider norms for their age, a child is still a child, and in multiple aspects of biology is at a disadvantage vs. an adult human both physically and mentally and so inherently there is a tremendous statutory power imbalance.

      -Judah
      True. I was careless you caught me 🙂 I as referring more in the medical sense, i.e. they didn’t know about sperm cells.

      -it is a woefully inferior beer
      Yes. So much the yes. If we can agree on this there can be peace on earth.

      – I know of absolutely NO ONE…
      Which is exactly my point.

      The problems in Mary’s conception are a red flag, along with the -political/theological- context of later gospels, that this scripture is highly suspect. You’ll notice it absent in Paul & Mark, and for very good reason. The whole setup in matthew and luke smacks of political shenanigans. It’s not surprising we constantly find more and more “problems” like this the further we get from direct contemporaneous wittiness to Jesus.

      I’m not, say, a theists, but if I was, I’d be a very good one, and my god would be your god you express. I agree that he is all good, and leads us on the true path of spiritual salvation. God would -never- get involved in anything even close to what is described in that story. As a universal supernatural timeless entity I know god would not suddenly appropriate human cultural norms in one or another time to “get his way” through the use of crass human semantics/symbology. My god is a profound powerful mysterious god, who if I have the holy spirit inside, would -never- allow me to commit a wrong, much like he saved Abraham’s son.

      Ergo,… this Immaculate conception, with all it’s problems, is a big red flag. Where I placed in the position of conforming the narrative with my belief in god, I’d rather annex the narrative than my faith in god, again, that’s just me if I was a theists.

      -God is communicating, as that transcends temporal boundaries
      Which is why I’m a fan of Paul, coky as he was, his faith was purely apolitical, he truly was on the path of transcendence, agree or not, believe or not in anything he wrote, he was addressing deep human spiritual truths.

  7. Sure. I prefer the ESV, and I would like to know that you actually took the time to understand based on original languages, so anything from the Hebrew scriptures or Septuagint will be accepted, as well. In addition, some documentation reflecting an understanding of the culture and society of the ANE would be nice too.

    One important note to make:

    “Still,.. I’d like to note this; YOU accuse me of “…totally read the Bible in such a way that you read the content you want into it.” Unless I’m mistaken, please correct me by all means, you mean to say that doing is,… IS A BAD THING ?”

    Uhh, yeah, it is. It’s called propaganda. My whole point is this. Read the text and take out what it actually says. That’s called seeking truth. Funny how you skeptics always think you are so objective, when you are really the first to be subjective.

    By the way, here is my crystal clear answer:

    God’s ways are not your ways or my ways. We are stupid and naive enough to think that “oh she’s pregnant, there’s only one way to do that, so God must be a rapist.” God doesn’t have to be bound by His own laws of physics or biology. Nor does He have to do things the way you would do them. God didn’t rape Mary. Rape has a sexual connotation that was totally absent. God didn’t have to play “tickle monster” or anything else. Maybe if His creation wasn’t so screwed up in the area of sexuality to begin with, we wouldn’t be having this asinine conversation. Of course, I’m just some crazy theist that believes that sex should be holy and sacred, meant for your wife, and can understand the difference between sex and Mary becoming pregnant through the Holy Spirit, so what would I know, right?

  8. atrin, you still there? I was kind of hoping it wouldn’t take two and a half months to get your reply back. I mean, I work two jobs, pastor a church, run the church’s website, raise four kids, and take care of this piece of internet realty. I figured as sure as you were of your arguments you would have surely blown me away by now. I’m kind of underwhelmed right now. No offense, of course 🙂

  9. why not abandoning this stupid and meaningless sonship of god or god the creator becoming human. remember this is an age of knowledge and as such deception cannot work. you say jesus is son of god simply because god sent his power to conceive mary not sexual union.if that is the case jesus’s relationship with god is no more than that of adam who was brought to existence not through sexual union.yet no body atributed divinity to adam.why not consider jesus as prophet and messenger of god like moses and muhammad to be on the safe side?

    1. Ibrahim, we don’t abandon it for several reasons. First and foremost, Jesus Himself claimed to be God in several passages, such as John 8:58. So, if Jesus Himself was pretty sure He was God, then He is either a liar, a lunatic, or He really is the Lord. I understand that Muslims claim that the Bible was corrupted and therefore unreliable. However, I would pose this for you and your fellow Muslims to contemplate…
      Muhammad believed the Bible was trustworthy, and he implored his followers to look at “the people of the book” as mentors because they believed first. Well, if the Bible was accurate then, but suddenly was corrupted afterwards, why then do we have multiple manuscripts existing before 630 AD that reflect the Bible in its current state? So, if Muhammad thought THAT bible was accurate, then he would also by extension think OUR bible is correct, since they are one and the same. Yet, this is an argument consistently used by Muslims to discredit the Bible. Sorry, but it doesn’t work.
      Ibrahim, I challenge you to really look for answers. If you accept the garbage arguments that are used to deny Jesus’ divinity, then you are falling for foolishness and lies. And if you and your people continue to do so, you will eventually find the truth about Jesus and the truth about Muhammad, but it will be too late to be able to spend eternity with the God who created us all. PLEASE ask Allah for truth and guidance. If you sincerely want the truth, you will not be denied!

  10. we are saying any portion of the bible atributing divinity to jesus is an invented lie inserted therein. in othe words the present bible is a mixture of truth and falsehood. quran is the criterion (furqan)to filter out truth from falsehood.thus, when quan talks about truth in the bible it is refering to the original message taught by moses and jesus not the inserted falsehood.the idea is that things become mixed up .there is therefore need for rewriting of the original message free from human interpolation.that is the quran or furqan(criterion)copied from guarded slate(lauhul mahfuz).had it been that the bible had not been corrupted there will be no need for quran

  11. Ok, but you are totally missing my point Ibrahim. The portions of the Bible attributing deity to Jesus were IN the Bible before Muhammad was even conceived. They have been there since the earliest manuscripts regarding the New Testament. Muhammad said…

    “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt. And be not thou of those who deny the revelations of Allah, for then wert thou of the losers” (Surah 10:94-95; 16:43).

    So, if those passages WERE fake, why would Muhammad say this? It’s simple. Muhammad didn’t know what he was talking about. He was a man, and a misguided one at that, whose foolishness has led to untold murder and death, and if he WAS decent at all, he would be truly embarrassed at the evil perpetrated on his behalf by radical Muslims everywhere who are chasing nothing more than a book of lies.

    Can you not see the foolishness there?

    “The parts of the Bible attributing deity to Jesus were added later.”

    “okay, well if that’s the case, why is it that those portions existed before Muhammad and yet he affirmed the Bible as being truthful?”

    “But they were added later.”

    “You still didn’t answer me. Are your critical thinking skills impaired?”

    You’re following lies, Ibrahim. You have a little portion of truth (the existence of God and Jesus) shoved inside of a great big fat lie. I implore you to follow Muhammad’s words and open the Bible.

  12. mr donald , i quite undestand your sickness of blind faith that god became human in the person of jesus on the authority of biblical verse you cited. i also understand your point that since the quran asked pagan arabs to confirm its message from those in possession of scriptures (ie ot and nt)it means the bible is reliable. if mr donald cares to know the truth he should have a class on usul fiqh(islamic science of interpretation )especially on subject areas like aam wal khass(general and specific)to enable you have proper understanding of the quran.eg the quranic verse you refered to enjoinig pagan arabs to confirm from people of the books, was generally talking about books like torah and gospels which originallyhave the same source(from allah the creator) as the quran, because the pagan arabs did not have revealed books in their possession unlike christians and jews.pagan arabs followed nothing but conjectures.they were told that quran has the same source(almighty god or almighty allah)like previous christian and jews scriptures.but the specific verses of the quran dismissed some docrines inserted in the bible like trinity or divinity of jesus etc to be invented lies not originally taught by jesus.thus, there is no contradiction here. this islamic principle of interpretation of aam and khass have been employed by modern lawyers , especially in the interpretation of statutes . i am a lawyer and as such i can easily understand the quran. i hope mr donald will open his mind to see the light of islam as it is now shinig in the west after exposing and debunkig christian evangelical deceptions. mr donald should go behind the veil and discover the truth. thanks

  13. Heh. Ibrahim, you seem to do very well at not letting truth get in the way of your beliefs. Do you understand that those pieces of scripture were in the Bible well before Muhammad told that to pagan arabs? That’s my point. If they are lies, why did Muhammad say go read them? What fool, trying to teach truth, would point someone to something that was a lie? I would challenge you to come out from the veil of Islam and step into truth. If you knew something was a lie, would you tell someone to believe it and study it? Of course not. You wouldn’t do it now if someone said they were interested in reading the Bible. But why not? It’s the same book Muhammad had. Face it Ibrahim. The Quran is a book full of lies written by a man full of lies, and any Muslim espousing the Quran as truth is nothing but either a liar or misguided fool. Which one are you?

  14. Besides… Who added that to the Bible? When was it added? You seem to know… And again, did it happen before 620 AD? Gimme some reason to give you some credit, Ibrahim. Otherwise, you look like you’re tap-dancing around the truth because you’ve got nothing.

  15. it appears to me that donald is suffering from choronic disease of kufr for worshiping human god. he could hardly hear the call . he prefers to be casted into hotest lake of hellfire to meet his friends abu jahl(the father of ignorance)and abu lahb (the father of flame)who were hardened kuffar and fond of insulting prophet muhammad. in fact one of the miracles performed by prophet muhammad was that when these friends of donald were dead and buried the prophet talked to them and they answered him that they were inside the hotest part of hellfire and all people there heard what they were saying. so, mr donald shall get ready to meat them there. even here in nigeria one archbishop had a dream that his dead predecessor who was fond of insulting prophet muhammad was casted into hotest part of hellfire.the archbishop repented and converted to islam. i will not mention his name for him not be killed by sinister christian association of nigeria. mr donald all lies against islam could not curb it from spreading. the blind folded christians in the west are now going behind the veils of lies put on them by christian evangelist deceiver for long. the light of islam is today shining in the west

    1. -hellfire

      ?

      Hmm.

      Explain this to me.

      I understand the word to be made of up two different words. “Hell” and “fire”.

      One refers to a place. The other refers to a known physical phenomenon of rapid exothermic oxidation ( known commonly as “fire” )

      I’m curious to know by what process would we “feel the fire” of said fires absent our physical bodies? Am I misunderstanding something here?

      Thanks 🙂

      1. Heh heh, so you find this one as entertaining as I do? 😀
        I guess I’m not a big fan of understanding Hell within the caricaturistic confines of “fire and a man with a pitchfork.” I’d love to go into this further, but I’d basically sum it up this way…

        If people don’t like God, and don’t particularly want to be around Him, should they be forced to forever? Probably not. But what’s the answer if you are God and you don’t particularly want to destroy your creation? Quarantine. Bam. Hell. Is it really fire? No. Fire is consistently used metaphorically for judgment. Is it a punishing? No. God is not actively ruining people’s lives for eternity. Is it a punishMENT? Yes. In the eternal state, we will all be fully aware and know as we are known. Those in eternal punishment would not particularly want to be stuck with God forever, but they will also be aware of exactly how much they are missing out and how much they have lost by not having a relationship with God. But, that’s just my two cent’s worth.

      2. -don’t like God
        I think it takes a bit more than this right? I believe its rejection of his existence right that god does not forgive?

        -dont want to be around him
        See that’s the part I have difficulty with. “Around”? What does that mean? Is that a coordinate space somewhere in some construct? What is the difference between “around” or not, or variations thereof? Fire is not a metaphor. It’s a physical process. So if it’s not fire, what is it, exactly? I’m concerned with mechanics here, spiritual or not, what, exactly, is the definition of the space? What is its field solution? Missing out? What? I mean, I grasp perhaps in an intellectual sense, some “emotional” bereavement. But man is if not always overcoming this? Would not at some point an sentience come to terms? Honestly I’m not faking ignorance. As a concept, I get it. But when I try to break that down into REALITY it just does not compute. Be it a supernatural plain, or spiritual miracle, or whathave you, it just not function at a deep basic level. It is not self sufficient as a process in reality. And what we are proposing is that it however supernatural in nature, that it is in fact real in some sense.

        Basically “what does that even mean?”

        And I get you have some high level ideas about hell, cool, I get that, all well and good, but I’m not sweeting that. I’m after the small stuff. The basic premise itself.

        It’s kindof my dream test. When I’m in a dream, I have a set of tests to determine if I’m in a dream. The thing about a dream is that at first pass it totally passes of for a totally valid reality. And in particular for complex conceptual constructs. But the moment you start asking the simple questions ( ie. where are my feet? How did I get here? Can I feel pain? Whats my name? ) It all just collapses. The same happens to me when thinking about “hell/hevan”.

        As you know more about that, I’d have to cede to your knowledge input. Thanks 🙂

      3. Hi Atrin,

        Sorry I haven’t replied at all to this. 5 kids, wife, successful software business make it tough. I’ll start with your first point…

        It isn’t really the rejection of God’s existence that He finds unforgivable. In fact, I don’t think there is a single verse in the Bible that would lead to that conclusion. If you are speaking about “The Unforgivable Sin,” it has more to do with a consistent insistence on denying God’s works and instead attributing them to Satan. Here is a link to a really good reference to that. Ultimately, what I’m getting at is this: We have a tendency to mystify things about God that really shouldn’t be mystified. There simply is no unforgivable sin other then directly and consistently attributing God’s work to Satan.

        When I say “be around God,” understand that the Christian belief is not that we will be with God in heaven playing harps, singing, riding clouds, living some disembodied experience for eternity. In fact, our belief is that, in a very real way, Eden will be restored, we will return to eternal life in our currently mortal bodies that will be made immortal and incorruptible. As such, God will live among men once again, as He did with Adam and Eve. Ultimately the understanding of eternity is that we will spend eternity with God on a restored earth that will not suffer from the taint of sin and death. So when I say “be around” God, in a current standpoint I mean people that do not want to surround themselves with the elements of God here (Living for God, being a Christ follower, etc and etc) and in the ultimate eternal sense of people who do not want to spend eternity with God being their God and they being His person.

        So, ultimately, understand our views on eternity: Those who love God and desire to be His will spend eternity on a new earth that could be understood as “Eden Restored.” Our bodies will be imperishable and incorruptible, and the experience of learning more about God will be infinite due to the very nature of His infinity. Those who don’t want to be with God will also be resurrected in imperishable, incorruptible bodies, but they will be banished from His presence and sent somewhere else. Where? Don’t know the details. Just that it is out of God’s presence.

  16. Well. That settles it. I guess I’m doomed for hottest (notice the second ‘t’ there) hellfire because I’m not willing to totally ignore the fact that you can’t produce a single clue as to who changed the Bible and when. You’re an idiot, Ibrahim. Your arguments are based out of I don’t even KNOW what, and the only thing you can do is try to act like a bully because you’re dumb. You know why I don’t take Islam seriously or “Prophet Muhammad?” Because Islam is utter nonsense and “Prophet Muhammad” is anything BUT a prophet. What is the test that the Quran is divine? Isn’t it to gather all of the jinn and the angels together and see if they can write even one verse as “beautiful” as the Quran? What kind of fruitcake test is that? The Bible is rooted in historical evidence and has consistently stood the test of time in regards to its historicity.

    But hey, Ibrahim, here’s another question for you. Breath, blood, dust, or nothing? You probably don’t get at what I’m asking are you? I’m asking what we were made of because the Quran claims all four. But that can’t POSSIBLY be true because ‘nothing’ excludes the other three. But see, that’s just some of the crap regurgitated by Muhammad onto paper. Just like Muhammad not knowing whether to hold Christians and Jews in esteem or to hate them. You know why? Because he thought they were his buddies in Mecca, but then when he went to Medina to try to actually “sell” people on Islam, the Jews and Christians rightly realized he was selling great big buckets of crap. Of course, that doesn’t stop millions of people being brain dead enough to fall for the lie that is Islam today.

    Ibrahim, you are nothing but a bully. You are just like almost every Muslim I have ever met. You can’t answer me logically, so you resort to “hellfire.” You would get a lot more respect if you could just answer my question, but you can’t. Who changed the Bible and when? Is that really that hard? Yeah, it is for you, because you and all your Muslim friends can’t answer that question, and when you can’t, you scream “Allah hu akbar” and cut some white dude’s head off. By the way, that doesn’t impress anyone that Muslims have mastered the art of having eight guys hold down some cornbread eating white boy and cut his head off. If Islam were anything OTHER than lies and stupidity, you wouldn’t have to cut people’s heads off to get them to believe, because it would make sense and ring with truth.

    I’m probably wasting my breath. You aren’t going to give me what I’m asking for, and I’m never going to believe that Muhammad, aka Mr. Child Marriage, aka Mr. Hate Religion, is ANYTHING other than a VERY evil and corrupt man who was led by Satan to create a religion that grows by fear and domination, not by actually being worth following.

    By the way, I’m not going to ‘meat’ anyone. That is gross. What would I do with ‘meat’ to some disembodied moron in hell? You mean ‘meet.’ If you are going to start a fight, learn the language, dude.

    1. mr donald now appears so wild spiting all kinds of insults on our noble prophet muhammad and islam. ist an article of christian faith to invent lies, twist facts to insult islam?it is that man-god worship syndrom that make christians behave irresponsibly.it is an irony for christians to accused muslims of violence.history has accurately recorded series of genocides and other atrocities committed by christians in the name of the cross. the christians under the directions of the church killed more than 20 million muslims (including women, children and olds)during crusade wars . the church in spain issued religious decree to the effect that all muslims must convet to filthy christianity or be killed. more 2/3 killed and the rest converted or fled.christians killed more than 17 million aboriginists in americas to have more territory for christ. almost the same number of africans were killed during transalantic slave trade. christians also killed more than 2m muslims in kaduna and plateau states in nigeria, got bodies roasted and eatened. the same acts of genocide were committed by christians in central africa.

    2. on your poser that why did the quran refer pagan arabs to christian and jewish scriptures that had been in existence before prophet muhammad was even conceived, i alrady stated that islam is not saying the whole scriptures that were in existence before the start of muhammad’s mission were fake. islam is saying that the existing bible at the time of prophet muhammad and now have been a mixture of truth and falsehood.when pagan arabs accused prophet muhammad of inventing new ideas (monotheism) and other stories contrary , allah told prophet muhammad to reply them that it is not new. it has the same root with the books then in possession of christians and jews.let them ask those people of the book they tell them the same story on the concept of monotheism and accuracy of those stories. but later some verses were revealed telling prophet muhammad that the people of the book had inserted some doctrines not originally taught by moses and jesus as i stated earlier. mr donald then challenged me to show him what was added later to the bible. i cited doctrines like divinity of jesus , trinity and original sin.other things like law of moses and stories in the bible actually tally with revelations in the quran and are among the facts pagan arabs were asked to confirm from the then christians and jews. with this i close the debate.it is left to seekers of truth to reflect.

    3. -you can’t produce a single clue as to who changed the Bible and when
      You do realize that there is an entire branch of science dedicated to studying scripture. Scripture as in written texts, on paper written down by humans?

      Exegesis ?

      I don’t mean to sound pandering, but, you are aware that as a matter of empirical fact it has been demonstrated that the bible indeed has had extensive editorial revision? And I don’t means simply lose in translations. I’m talking about common ordinary editing, addition, deletion, transliteration, duplication, grammatical errors, even obvious and patent fabrications in some instances?

      And that this has been common accepted knowledge accepted by even Theists of considerable note?

      -aka Mr. Child Marriage ( In reference to Mohammad )

      COULD YOU PLEASE EXPOUND ON THIS POINT?

      1. I would say if that’s the case, why then would codices such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both dated before the sixth century, both essentially reflect our scripture today? I’m well aware of the science of textual criticism. Bart Ehrman likes to flaunt that there are more errors in the NT than there are words. What he doesn’t mention is that, with the exception of a few statements that may affect interpretation of secondary doctrine, the text is unaffected. Many of these differences result from a ‘movable nu,’ an optional letter used in Greek texts. Others are where a translator may have referred to he where another redactor then changed it to “jesus” even though in every situation it is abundantly clear who the antecedent of “he” is. Absolutely there are some differences between manuscripts, but those manuscripts don’t change the meat of the argument.

        Muhammad was in his 50s when he married 6 year old Aisha. I think this falls out of the bounds of reasonability even for that culture.

      2. – “essentially”
        To quote the bard, if I may, “A’ye there’s the rub!” 🙂

        Exactly is not the same as “almost” exactly. You’re not going to sell me on abdicating my propensity for being a stickler for exactitude. The Ehrman hate gives me the T_T Don’t be that guy. But on a serious note, the point is the text (the physical copies on paper and oral history ) is itself objectively not a celestial, transcendent work of supernatural construct. It so far as we have all knowledge is a human fabrication ( whatever the original “content source” ), and as such we are obliged to apply critical analysis to it. It is transparently not “written” by an non-human entity, so it is more than reasonable to propose that there can be objective – theological methods of discarding aberrant text.

        -reasonability even for that culture.
        Any culture.

        *cough Deuteronomy *cough

  17. You STILL don’t get it. Those verses referring to Jesus’ divinity were already IN THE BIBLE. Who put them there? You still won’t answer. We refer to the trinity not because of a specific verse, it is an implicit truth because the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and God the Son are all referred to as God, yet are distinct beings performing distinct jobs. What I’m trying to get you to understand is that those verses implying these things were already witnessed in scripture. No one put it in. Why did Muhammad not make that argument when he was in Mecca? Why did he wait until he was writing from Medina to say that? Because Christians and Jews set him straight on his screwed up views regarding God and he didn’t like it. So instead of agreeing with them , he decided they were evil. But you know, Ibrahim, you and everyone else on planet earth will one day stand face to face with Jesus, the Son of God, and you will see just how wide the gap is between your “prophet” and the Mashiach.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: