The virgin story

[Willum]

Of course I have always found, in the spirit of Dennis Miller, that those people or cultures who put a high price on virginity are usually very immature.

However, allowing for that, an angel appears before Mary and gives her the good news, or opportunity, we presume she could have refused, to become the mother of Jesus.

But even scenarios on Earth, where teachers and students, trainers and cadets, officers and enlisted, are considered to have too much power over the subjects to ethically engage in procreation exercises.

How much less ethical for the lord of universe (assuming it really was the big G, and not a naughty tryst with Tiberius Panthera - like the Jewish of the time seemed to believe)... how much less ethical for the lord of the universe to subject himself "secretly" to some naive girl?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to do it publicly, say, and have a competition among likely candidates? Or at least an announcement to save the girl from the scandal of and inexplicable pregnancy? Why would you exclude women who proved themselves to be good mothers already?

Is there any other explanation for the virgin mother other than insecurity?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 10 by JehovahsWitness]

That is an excellent observation if it is your desire to ignore the premise of the OP.
So, it was a miracle lapse of judgment and ethics on the part of an all-knowing God:

That's your story,I assume you're sticking to it.
Or maybe you could read the OP, and come up with a more benign premise to go forward with, one in line with the topic?

Actually, that is the one you'll be forced to come up with at the end of the tunnel anyway - join us JW, your religion is constantly forcing you to a compromise of ethics, intelligence or reality, and God has not saved you from it.

[JehovahsWitness]

Wouldn't it have made more sense to do it publicly, say, and have a competition among likely candidates? Or at least an announcement to save the girl from the scandal of and inexplicable pregnancy? Why would you exclude women who proved themselves to be good mothers already?

Is there any other explanation for the virgin mother other than insecurity?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to do it publicly, say, and have a competition among likely candidates?


# Why would an omnipotent God need a "competition" to find the most likely candidates? He would know before hand how suitable someone was, the only question would be (if he chose to leave that question open) is if the most suitable and likely candidate to accept would.


Or at least an announcement to save the girl from the scandal of and inexplicable pregnancy?

She was engaged to be married, so there would be no "scandal", a married woman giving birth to a baby wasn't considered scandelous.

All some kind of "public annoucement" would have done is unnecessarily call into question Jesus' parentage and cast a shadow on Mary's morality. It is unlikely that without divine intervention anyone would have believed her story and Jesus birth was not the time for his publically revealing himself as the Messiah. (Already when the wor of his birth got to Herod it put him in danger, it would be 30 years before the time of his (the Messiah's) revelation was to come)

Why would you exclude women who proved themselves to be good mothers already?

The Messiah could only be born of one woman, that there may have been a thousand good mothers doesn't change this fact. Virginity has always been something symbolic of purity and one could argue it is quite fitting for the mother of the Messiah to be a virgin; while carrying the son of the most high. In any case Mary's (and Joseph's) personal conviction of the miraclulous nature of her pregnancy served at the very least as a source of encouragement during what would prove some difficult and faith testing times.

[JehovahsWitness]

So, it was a [...] lapse of judgment and ethics on the part of an all-knowing God

Why would you say this? Where in your opinion was the bad (lapse of) Judgement or lack of ethics in the story?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 12 by JehovahsWitness]

You see, all I have to do to each of those is say, "I don't agree,"

# Why would an omnipotent God need a "competition" to find the most likely candidates? He would know before hand how suitable someone was, the only question would be (if he chose to leave that question open) is if the most suitable and likely candidate to accept would.

Because it is stupid for there to only be one person worthy of an omnipotent God. A being with powers you credit him for could have made a sea-gull the mother of the savior. As it is, it allows reasonable people to believe she was knocked up in a naughty tryst, rather than seduced by the creator.
Which is more likely? Naughty tryst, immaculate conception.
Sometime removing doubt, or in the critical thinkers view, the certainty that Mary was not a mother of God, but a naughty girl, would be very useful.

She was engaged to be married, so there would be no "scandal", a married woman giving birth to a baby wasn't considered scandalous.

Engaged is NOT married. Fantastic, so she would have been untrue to her fiancée. That does explain why they let town so suddenly. She must've told Joe it was really his.

Virginity has always been something symbolic of purity and one could argue it is quite fitting for the mother of the Messiah to be a virgin;

And God shares this very insecure view that humans have? If he were concerned, he should have had Jesus emerge from an egg or something to show purity, as it is it makes her look disreputable, not pure.

So, again, God,were the virgin story real, should have created a way to remove doubt of Mary's being seduced by a Roman soldier.
Should have ensured that it didn't look like he was taking advantage of an naive girl.

You see?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 13 by JehovahsWitness]

OK, No PM-ing, I will waste everyone's time on trivium:

Try reading the OP.

A trainer requires sexual favors because of his/her status to a student, it is unethical.
How much worse when God does it?

[Justin108]

But even scenarios on Earth, where teachers and students, trainers and cadets, officers and enlisted, are considered to have too much power over the subjects to ethically engage in procreation exercises.

The difference, of course, is that God never had sex with Mary. He just made her pregnant. She was a means to an end. The reason it is unethical for teachers to have sex with students is because the teacher would be using the student to fulfill his own sexual desires. This hardly describes the situation with Mary. The only satisfaction God got out of this was bringing Jesus into the world which was supposedly a benefit to the world rather than to God. So basically God used Mary to make something happen that was in the best interest of humanity. I'm sure a teacher using a student to better humanity would not be considered unethical.

how much less ethical for the lord of the universe to subject himself "secretly" to some naive girl?

Again, you're making it sound like God had sex with her. He didn't.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to do it publicly, say, and have a competition among likely candidates?

God is omniscient. He knows who would and would not make good mothers. There would be no need for a competition.

Is there any other explanation for the virgin mother other than insecurity?

Insecurity about what exactly?

[Justin108]

# Why would an omnipotent God need a "competition" to find the most likely candidates? He would know before hand how suitable someone was, the only question would be (if he chose to leave that question open) is if the most suitable and likely candidate to accept would.

Because it is stupid for there to only be one person worthy of an omnipotent God.

Who said there was only one? God choosing one person does not mean there is only one person to choose from. What would you suggest? That God splits the task of giving birth to Jesus among twelve women? One giving birth to his leg, the other his arm, and so on? God needed one woman to give birth to Jesus. He found one. The fact that there were probably several other candidates hardly seems relevant.

If you have a task you want completed and you had several children, all equally capable of doing it, would you waste everyone's time by hosting a competition? Or would you just choose one of your children and ask them to complete the task?

A being with powers you credit him for could have made a sea-gull the mother of the savior. As it is, it allows reasonable people to believe she was knocked up in a naughty tryst, rather than seduced by the creator.

Seduced? Again, there is nothing to suggest God had sex with Mary...

If your main gripe with this was that God did not announce Mary has his "champion", then you might as well just ask the far broader question of why God doesn't announce his existence to the whole world.

Which is more likely? Naughty tryst, immaculate conception.

Naughty tryst, surely. If your OP asked "which is more likely? Immaculate conception or a lying woman?" then the answer would have been so much simpler. Instead your OP deals with a lot of weird notions of God taking sexual advantage of a virgin girl.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 17 by Justin108]

I like these counter-arguments, they actually prove the points -arrive at the same conclusions.

They are all unbelievable and pointless.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 16 by Justin108]

So sex with impregnation is somehow more sinful than seducing an innocent girl and impregnating her.

How do you know he simply didn't have a non-violating mode of sexual intercourse with her? If so, was she still as pure as she needed to be?

I think the distinction is silly. Can you demonstrate how it is not?

[alwayson]

Is there any other explanation for the virgin mother other than insecurity?

Mary was invented.

Paul never mentions Mary.