Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on October 18, 2015, 11:47:47 AM
-
deleted
-
What was the age of consent in first century Palestine? And how old was Mary at the time? Clearly she was of child bearing age and considered old enough to be betrothed. Even though we would not today recommend pregnancy too soon after puberty, this was very much the norm in that age, given the short life expectancy at the time.
-
If the deity got that poor kid Mary pregnant, it would be considered a paedophile today, as she was likely to have been a young teenager and below the age of consent! Much more likely of course Mary had sex in the usual way with Joseph or another! However if the deity was responsible it should have married her itself, rather than let Joseph pick up the pieces!
It annoys me that in times past, and even today, some Christians are very nasty about a girl getting pregnant before marriage, when Mary was in the same boat!
I think you've started 4 or 5 almost identical threads to this over the months, Floo. You clearly don't agree with the responses you've had before, so why not use one of those threads to put your argument forward properly.
I suspect that I've posted this response on 3 or 4 previous occasions but it doesn't harm to repeat it.
In Jewish culture, betrothal was and remains as legal a contractual agreement as marriage is today. That is why we are told that Joseph considered divorcing Mary when he heard that she was pregnant. The difference was that, in a culture where marriages were arranged, families lived in more extended family settings, and the time between the arrangement and the betrothal usually far shorter than today's engagements, there was a need for the groom to build his own 'home' before he could bring his wife back to it. In most cases that was an extension to or a separate building alongside his family's property, and the custom was that he would 'marry' his bride, return home and build his accommodation and then go to his bride's familial home and collect her.
Regarding the age of consent, this has varied widely over the centuries, and didn't exist in law until the 13th century. This piece from the Wikipedia entry on 'Age of Consent' underrlines th complxities.
The first recorded age-of-consent law dates to 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.
In the 12th century, Gratian, the influential founder of canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.
Yet again, Floo, you are imposing 20th and 21st century understandings on a historical situation - something you are extremely good at doing, but which misses out the whole historical context of such situations.
Regarding the idea that the deity should have married Mary 'itself', as you put it, how would you suggest that it did that?
-
Even though we would not today recommend pregnancy too soon after puberty,
What do you mean by "so soon after puberty"? We have no idea how old Mary was when she got pregnant with Jesus.
-
Hope
Are you suggesting Joseph NEVER had sex with his wife ever up until she was in 'that' pregnancy ???
-
Even though we would not today recommend pregnancy too soon after puberty,
What do you mean by "so soon after puberty"? We have no idea how old Mary was when she got pregnant with Jesus.
Fair point. I should have said, 'possibly so soon after puberty'. It is widely considered that Mary would have been in her early teens (14/15) but there is no hard evidence to support this.
-
... However if the deity was responsible it should have married her itself, rather than let Joseph pick up the pieces!
...
Would you please explain what that would have entailed. Currently this is looking like one of the daftest OPs ever. Maybe I have missed something.
-
I don't know why you all bother gracing threads like this with an answer.
-
Hope
Are you suggesting Joseph NEVER had sex with his wife ever up until she was in 'that' pregnancy ???
Very likely, as the custom of the time was for the two to consummate their vows only after the groom had taken his bride to the accommodation he had built. As far as the story tells us, he had not come to collect her by the time she got pregnant. That is partly why the story makes so much of their not having consummated their vows.
-
Would you please explain what that would have entailed. Currently this is looking like one of the daftest OPs ever. Maybe I have missed something.
Alan, as Floo has started several threads over the years with almost identical wording to this, it can't be "one of the daftest OPs ever" ;)
-
Regarding the idea that the deity should have married Mary 'itself', as you put it, how would you suggest that it did that?
Bumped for Floo's attention.
-
Regarding the idea that the deity should have married Mary 'itself', as you put it, how would you suggest that it did that?
Bumped for Floo's attention.
Well if the deity exists, and is supposedly omnipotent, then surely it could find a way. ;D But as the story of the conception of Jesus lacks the slightest bit of credibility, one could reasonably suppose it is untrue, and concocted at a much later date to explain the unfortunate fact the girl was up the spout before she married Joseph!
-
Well if the deity exists, and is supposedly omnipotent, then surely it could find a way.
So, I think that you would agree that before the deity could marry a human s/he would have to become a human being. How might s/he have done that?
But as the story of the conception of Jesus lacks the slightest bit of credibility, one could reasonably suppose it is untrue, and concocted at a much later date to explain the unfortunate fact the girl was up the spout before she married Joseph!
The problem with this paragraph is that it directly contradicts what you have argued in the first paragraph. It is this inability of yours to create a coherent argument that makes so many of your posts inconsequential, Floo.
-
Well if the deity exists, and is supposedly omnipotent, then surely it could find a way.
So, I think that you would agree that before the deity could marry a human s/he would have to become a human being. How might s/he have done that?
But as the story of the conception of Jesus lacks the slightest bit of credibility, one could reasonably suppose it is untrue, and concocted at a much later date to explain the unfortunate fact the girl was up the spout before she married Joseph!
The problem with this paragraph is that it directly contradicts what you have argued in the first paragraph. It is this inability of yours to create a coherent argument that makes so many of your posts inconsequential, Floo.
Hope, you don't seem to get the fact that as I don't believe for one second the deity got that kid Mary in the family way, my suggestion that he should have married her was a JOKE! ::)
And as for creating a coherent argument, since when have you managed to do so?
-
Hope, you don't seem to get the fact that as I don't believe for one second the deity got that kid Mary in the family way, my suggestion that he should have married her was a JOKE! ::)
Yet, Floo, you seem very keen to work out how the joke might actually have happened. Look, for instance, at the title you have chosen for the thread; look, for instance, the number of times you start threads with a paragraph worded very similarly to the way you started this one. It all points to something far deeper than a mere joke.
And as for creating a coherent argument, since when have you managed to do so?
Well, I only have to do it once to have a 100% better record than you do. However, I believe that most of my posts make coherent arguments. Whether time proves them to have been incorrect arguments is another thing.
-
Wasn't God meant to have sent an angel to tell various members of the family, Joseph included, that it wasn't Mary's fault?
Matthew 1.20.
🌹
That is correct, Rose - but since Floo doesn't believe in anyof this supernatural gumpf, she can't be seen to accept that this could have happened. ;)
-
Dear Corrie,
I don't know why you all bother gracing threads like this with an answer.
Amen Brother.
Gonnagle.
-
Wasn't God meant to have sent an angel to tell various members of the family, Joseph included, that it wasn't Mary's fault?
Matthew 1.20.
🌹
That is correct, Rose - but since Floo doesn't believe in anyof this supernatural gumpf, she can't be seen to accept that this could have happened. ;)
Because it is complete GARBAGE, imo, like the rest of the fairy tales in the Bible for which there is NO evidence to support them!
-
I don't know why you all bother gracing threads like this with an answer.
Agreed: it is an absurd thread.
-
If the deity got that poor kid Mary pregnant, it would be considered a paedophile today, as she was likely to have been a young teenager and below the age of consent!
Reality check! As no sexual intercourse took place how can you possibly come up with the above? :o :o Also in those days they were betrothed quite young. Not a child if a maiden.
Much more likely of course Mary had sex in the usual way with Joseph or another! However if the deity was responsible it should have married her itself, rather than let Joseph pick up the pieces!
Why? what is marriage.... without religious beliefs it has very little meaning other than legally to protect the rights of the woman and the children in law.
It annoys me that in times past, and even today, some Christians are very nasty about a girl getting pregnant before marriage, when Mary was in the same boat!
Where is the evidence for this?
Today women get pregnant all the time and have babies out of wedlock. But no one is getting nasty with them. You planned this post and never once gave thought or credence for truth. If you want to attack God, I suggest you come up with something based on fact and not your own twisted concept of the truth.
-
It annoys me that in times past, and even today, some Christians are very nasty about a girl getting pregnant before marriage, when Mary was in the same boat!
Where is the evidence for this?
Today women get pregnant all the time and have babies out of wedlock. But no one is getting nasty with them. You planned this post and never once gave thought or credence for truth. If you want to attack God, I suggest you come up with something based on fact and not your own twisted concept of the truth.
[/quote]Sass, Floo finds it hard to admit that childbirth out of wedlock has long been an issue across societies and cultures, and that Chritianity is basically no different from other belief systems in that regard.
For her, everything bad has to be down to the Christian deity because of the abusive way in which she experienced religion as a child. Over the years, she has hinted at things, but never fully explained what occurred. Even some of her 'hints' are no different from how a good parent behaves towards their child - seeking to protect them from what the parent understands as dangers.
-
Yes floo, we see that everything you put up on the internet is a joke to you to get noticed. Your constant rants against God here and your prayers to this God.
Yes your inspirational prayer poems you post on the internet. "Lord, thank goodness you know me" and your "A First Time Grandma's Prayer"
You called me a liar and that coming from one who is obviously conning everybody makes me sad for you.
Why do you trash our saviour over here and praise Him with prayer poems elsewhere? What's your game?
-
I think the way unmarried mothers and their babies have been treated in the past, by Christian institutions , could constitute evidence of Christians getting nasty.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/sin-and-the-single-mother-the-history-of-lone-parenthood-7782370.html
I know attitudes have changed but some of the victims are still suffering.
The problem was it was considered a "sin" , even by "secular" society.
Your closing comment - 'even by "secular" society' - highlights the fact that it was a view that was bigger than merely Christianity, Rose.
-
Yes it was, but wider society considered it a sin, and it got that from Christianity.
If this was true, I'd agree, Rose, but it was regarded by society as wrong long before Christ even appeared on the scene. It had been frowned upon in Hindu societies, Buddhist societies, animist societies, etc., long before Christianity started.
-
If the deity got that poor kid Mary pregnant, it would be considered a paedophile today, as she was likely to have been a young teenager and below the age of consent!
Reality check! As no sexual intercourse took place how can you possibly come up with the above? :o :o Also in those days they were betrothed quite young. Not a child if a maiden.
Much more likely of course Mary had sex in the usual way with Joseph or another! However if the deity was responsible it should have married her itself, rather than let Joseph pick up the pieces!
Why? what is marriage.... without religious beliefs it has very little meaning other than legally to protect the rights of the woman and the children in law.
It annoys me that in times past, and even today, some Christians are very nasty about a girl getting pregnant before marriage, when Mary was in the same boat!
Where is the evidence for this?
Today women get pregnant all the time and have babies out of wedlock. But no one is getting nasty with them. You planned this post and never once gave thought or credence for truth. If you want to attack God, I suggest you come up with something based on fact and not your own twisted concept of the truth.
As IVF hadn't been invented in those far off days the only way a woman could get pregnant was by having sexual intercourse! The deity getting her up the spout is NOT credible!
Women can still be stoned to death in some countries for getting pregnant without being wed. Many Christian fundies would be unhappy with a girl who is in the family without a ring on her finger!
I am more than happy to attack the evil entity featured in the Bible there is nothing good about it if the deeds attributed to it were true!
-
Dear Hope,
Indeed! our story of Glasgow's patron St is evidence of this, his mother "Thenew" was condemned to be thrown of a high cliff because she was pregnant out of wedlock, the high priests or druids had condemned her to this fate.
Of course because she had already converted to Christianity, a flock of birds engulfed her and eased her fall, and the fact that she was carrying a saint.
Gonnagle.
-
Yep, it wasn't Christians who first thought of women as property, not was it clear when their church, inspired by some omniscient omnipotent being, started that they had been told they weren't somehow property. Indeed much of their mythology like impregnating a woman non consensually or the Ten Commandments which effectively classified a wife as the equivalent of a donkey supported the whole chattel idea.
-
Yep, it wasn't Christians who first thought of women as property, not was it clear when their church, inspired by some omniscient omnipotent being, started that they had been told they weren't somehow property. Indeed much of their mythology like impregnating a woman non consensually or the Ten Commandments which effectively classified a wife as the equivalent of a donkey supported the whole chattel idea.
Equivalent of a donkey? Why do you say that? Are you referring to any studies on the position of women in the OT or something else?