Could Mary have said No?

Is it force and is it rape for God to conceive a child in the womb of a woman who willingly was against having a child in so much her husband submitted to operation to prevent providing seed for child conception and she took pills to prevent it?????

Is it rape, force by God, since obviously God did not seek their permission and knowingly opposed both the wills of husband and wife????

 

Not at all I quoted the scripture and showed that Mary said "let it be done to me according to thy word" which indicates she could have said "let in not be done to me according to thy word"

Rape is forcing your self upon another person despite what they say or do.

 

The difference here is that the wife you are suggesting is participating in an activity that has a level of chance of producing a child. A child is the consequence of the activity so in a sense she has submitted to that possibility.

Mary was not in that situation.

 

Boy, you can wiggle like a slimy snake! So, you are giving up the argument based upon FORCING SOMEONE AGAINST THEIR WILL and moving to the argument of circumstantial probabilities based upon consequences of conduct????

The fact still remains that the marriage couple conceived AGAINST THEIR WILL. The fact still remains that God did not ask permission for conception.

The fact still remains that even in consenting marriage partners God NEVER asks for permission to give or to refain from giving conception.

The fact still remains that God is sovereign in regard to giving or refraining to give conception.

The fact still remains that God NEVER asked permission of Mary.

The fact still remains that God has the Sovereign right to do what He wills with His own and Mary simply acknowledge that. She never gave permission. She never said:

"Be it according to thy REQUEST"

Instead she submitted to God's declared Revealed Will:

"Be it according to THY WORD (rhema)"

Last, Mary did not use the Greek term "logos" for simply revelation but used the term "Rhema" which is WORD OF COMMAND.

 

No it is you who are wiggling. My position is to force your will upon another is a type of rape. And all people understand consequences of actions. If you do such and such there is a chance for such and such. Natural law is clear.

I find this funny. Its like saying a store robber's chances of getting caught because of their precaution was limited. However, his last robbery he got caught and now as a consequence goes to Jail. Going to jail is against his will. Yet if he never engaged in the activity he would never have gotten caught.

Well, there is question based on the language used.

Rhema also means breath. Its irrelevant which word was used for word because Mary submitted of her own free will. You are suggesting she did not. That if she didn't agree He would have forced her to have the incarnation anyway. And that is a form of rape.

 

All your arguments above are based solely upon MORAL LEGALITY. Rape and force are non-existent apart from MORAL LEGALITY. However, if MORAL LEGALITY is the basis then God's law reserves conception within the MORAL LEGAL REALM of marriage alone. If you can charge me with making God a RAPIST by asserting His will upon her than I can charge you with making God a FORNICATOR by conceiving a child out of wedlock.

The whole MORAL LEGALITY argument is invalid as there is no potential sexual relationship between God and humans whether MORAL or IMMORAL. God has the soveign right to conceive a child in a woman out of wedlock as in wedlock without permission and therefore the right to concieve a child in Mary without permisssion if He so desires. Your argument of laws of probability is based upon MORAL LEGALITY due to responsible actions. Hence, you just as well take the position that God MARRIED Mary because if you base your arguments upon LEGAL MORALITY than God is either a rapist or a fornicator - take your pick as that is what YOUR LOGIC leads to ultimately.

The fact that God sovereignly choose to conceive a child in a fornicating woman demonstrates that God's right is not based MORAL LEGALITY but upon His own divine purpose as He could have prevented the conception.

 

You are saying that because God didn't ask Mary's permission He was forcing her to do it. That is a ridiculous presumption. God didn't ask Jeremiah to be a prophet, He simply ordained Jeremiah before he was born to be a prophet. Jeremiah wasn't asked, but he also wasn't forced against his will.

God did not ask me if I wanted to be a preacher. He called me. He is sovereign. He does what He wants. I am a grasshopper in His sight. God never asked me, but that doesn't mean that it is against my will. There are times when this burden is hard and I despair, but the truth is I am thankful to be a tool in the hand of God. I am thankful to have been called into the ministry by the God of heaven.

Mary wasn't asked, but that doesn't mean she was a robot or that God forced her to do anything. She was thankful, God knew she would be thankful, and He gave her the grace, strength, wisdom, etc. that she needed.

 

How many rapist have said that? Terrible consept. And as far as Jerimiah, I believe Jerimiah could have refused his calling. But did not.

 

Your whole presuposition is that God can act contrarily to his own law and his own morality. I do not believe he can. its apart from his nature to do such.

 

That is so preposterous I am shocked you posted it.

Could Jeremiah have refused the call? No. Jonah tried, remember? God wouldn't leave him alone until he did what God gave him to do. That is exactly how God operates. I couldn't refuse the call to the ministry. I could have tried to resist, but I would have failed. God is God. He does His will in the amies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth and none can stay His hand or say unto Him, what doest thou? That doesn't mean God forced me (or Jeremiah) to preach against our will and we hated every minute of it and afterwards felt violated and wronged. Actually, it is a great honor and joy to preach to God's people, and I'm thankful He placed me into the ministry. But He never asked me and I certainly couldn't refuse Him. Had I tried I would have failed just like Jonah.

Mary wasn't asked, but she wasn't forced either. It was a great joy in her life to be mother of the Messiah.

 

Jonah had already accepted the calling of prophet it is within his already assigned title which he planned on detering himself from God in which we can see how badly it ended for Jonah. We are talking about before one becomes a prophet or a vessel. I'm not suggesting that Mary did not have great Joy in obeying God. My position is that she voluntarily submitted to God's will. An example we should all follow. God did not coerce her as is implied by "she didn't have a choice". Which Dr. Walter and you purport. Coersion in this sense cannot be seen as anything other than immoral.

 

Pr 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

 

Rape? Fornication? I cannot believe that these words would ever be part of a Christian conversation about the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. I have been dismayed by many things on BB but this one takes the absurdity prize.

Look at Mary's own words responding to Elizabeth:

Luke 1:46-49 KJV
46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

​

Looking for words of consent? Mary was overjoyed that Almighty God would consider her - a woman of humble means and humble heart - to be worthy. He - God her Savior; the very One magnified in her soul - HATH DONE TO ME GREAT THINGS! Mary was no victim. SHE WAS BLESSED and recognized that. How many women would be called on by God to bear the human form of the Divine? Exactly one - Mary. She clearly recognized her place in God's plan and rejoiced in her spirit. Holy is His name!

Even the Qu'ran depicts Mary as rejoicing over God's choosing of her. Rape and fornication? Perhaps Muggerridge was right when he said, "We have educated ourselves into imbecility."

 

I'm not questioning Mary's obedience or mortivation for obedience but whether she had a choice or not. I'm not suggesting that God "raped" or forced his will upon her either. What I am saying is that using the Logic. "Mary had no choice and it would have happened to her no matter her disposition of the matter." begs to question the morality of God. Yes I used language that is shocking however to a point. Mary was not forced as you so obviously mentioned. I also have stated that "let it be done to me as you have said" is consent. Note I'm not arguing whether Mary knew of her place in God's redemptive plan. I question the validity of the thought "She had no choice in the matter". In one way I can accept it if one were to consider her faithful to the Lord and thus she could not imagine or consider disobeying God. But that is a different matter than "No matter what" which is being purported here. And since it is her faithfulness which lead to consent we can say she is an example to be followed which means most protestants make too little of Mary Such as DHK's "any virgin would do" we have seen that this is not the case. Nor Dr. Walter's - She was Chosen in such a manner that her consent or not is irrelevant - which would make her one of two things a robot or a victim. I propose God's morality is such that he would not violate her will. However, logic stands that God would have violated will from Dr. Walter and RAdam perspective.