God Having Sex with Mary
-
_ajax18
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6914
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am
It is Not Scriptural that God has blood. Here is a Scriptural Passage from the New Testament:1 Corinthians 15:50 (New American Standard Bible)
The Mystery of Resurrection
50 Now I say this, brethren, that (A)flesh and blood cannot (B)inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit (C)the imperishable.
They must be some really interesting bones, that are different from what we think of as bones. Bones are vascular tissue and they contain lots of blood. I just don't see how you can take anything from the scriptures as an answer to any scientific question, especially as to how our body works, or how a resurrected body would work.
I think Gaz was referring to "blood" from mother and Father as DNA. Of course people didn't know about DNA when the scriptures were written so the common term for indicating biological lineage was blood. Just one more reason I don't think you're going to get a solid scientific answer out of a book that was wrtten for the purpose of giving moral knowledge not scientific.OK.. hold the phone! Are you saying God has blood? What? Is it not scriptural that the resurrected Christ had a body of flesh and bones but no blood? Which of course brings up how one can create sperm if there is not blood. I don't want to get into the particulars on a PG board but lets be real, guys need blood to have sex! The idea that God has DNA that can be transmitted via sex but has no blood is, well silliness, or a reflection of a very advanced species who would certainly not have to have sex with a human to create more DNA.
I think the point is that while we believe that the God of the universe does have supernatural powers that would enable him to raise up seed out of a rock, He rarely uses them. He almost always does things naturally and imperceptibly to the point that it would be easy to think that nothing supernatural ever happened at all. Hence I don't think it's inconsistent to say that God has magical supernatural powers, but that if He wanted to procreate with Mary, He probably did just simply have sex with her.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
-
_truth dancer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4792
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm
Hi Ajax...
Hmmm why would someone who has supernatural powers rarely use them? (Off topic but what evidence is there for God even having supernatural or magical powers)?
What I find strange is that humans think the God who created the universe must (or wanted to) share his dna with a female in a way that was invented by reptiles.
Seems to me an advanced human would be a little ahead of the game. ;-)
Ya know?
:-)
~dancer~
think the point is that while we believe that the God of the universe does have supernatural powers that would enable him to raise up seed out of a rock, He rarely uses them. He almost always does things naturally and imperceptibly to the point that it would be easy to think that nothing supernatural ever happened at all. Hence I don't think it's inconsistent to say that God has magical supernatural powers, but that if He wanted to procreate with Mary, He probably did just simply have sex with her.
Hmmm why would someone who has supernatural powers rarely use them? (Off topic but what evidence is there for God even having supernatural or magical powers)?
What I find strange is that humans think the God who created the universe must (or wanted to) share his dna with a female in a way that was invented by reptiles.
Seems to me an advanced human would be a little ahead of the game. ;-)
Ya know?
:-)
~dancer~
-
_Gazelam
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5659
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am
".....invented by reptiles.."?
I would try to answer that, but damn, where does one begin to answer to a mind that could even construe that type of question in a post concerning God himself?
I would try to answer that, but damn, where does one begin to answer to a mind that could even construe that type of question in a post concerning God himself?
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
-
_truth dancer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4792
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm
Hi Gaz...
I'm not quite sure what your post means?
I'm NOT the one suggesting God had sex with Mary. What question did I construe that you find difficult to answer?
Science is pretty clear how human mating came to be.... You are the one suggesting this very primitive, earthly, animal form of mating is the one the God of the Universe used.
Hmmm... maybe I missed something?
~dancer~
I would try to answer that, but damn, where does one begin to answer to a mind that could even construe that type of question in a post concerning God himself?
I'm not quite sure what your post means?
I'm NOT the one suggesting God had sex with Mary. What question did I construe that you find difficult to answer?
Science is pretty clear how human mating came to be.... You are the one suggesting this very primitive, earthly, animal form of mating is the one the God of the Universe used.
Hmmm... maybe I missed something?
~dancer~
-
_Enuma Elish
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:18 pm
Truth Dancer,
And biblical theology is also pretty clear.
Therefore, given the fact that the Bible presents the gods—including Israel’s deity, as sexual beings that participate in a “very primitive, earthly, animal form of mating,” are we to assume that you would categorize biblical theology as primitive?
Of course if directed towards the average person on the street today, any question regarding God’s sexuality would no doubt produce a quizzical look, followed by an emphatic “No!,” however, the same question, if directed towards the average person in the ancient Near East would produce the exact opposite result, “Well, of course God has sex!”
While perhaps a bit shocking from a contemporary perspective—as witnessed for example via this very thread—the notion of God as a sexual being is really quite ancient.
The discovery of the pottery shards from Kuntillet 'Ajrud which depict Yahweh with his wife, illustrate that Yahweh himself, at least in some Israelite minds, was a sexual being; for a nice general survey see Margalit, Baruch, “The Meaning and Significance of Asherah,” Vetus Testamentum 40 (1990): 264-297.
Given this prevailing trend, when it comes to the biblical view of God’s sexuality, absence of evidence is not evidence of abstinence.
In reality, the Bible contains important evidence suggesting that God and his heavenly host were, in fact, sexual beings. While this observation may seem primitive to some Christians, biblical authors clearly felt quite comfortable portraying their deity in sexual terms.
One recent study devoted to this topic includes Willem Boshoff's “Sexual Encounters of a Different Kind: Hosea 1:2 as Foreplay to the Message of the Book of Hosea,” in Religion and Theology 1(1994): 329-339.
In the article, Boshoff discusses the fact that Hos 1:2 relies upon the imagery of conjugal infidelity in relationship to the Yahweh-Israel relationship. Boshoff suggests that the imagery and vocabulary in the book of Hosea reflect the multifaceted religious situation in ancient Israel wherein Hosea was one of many competing religious viewpoints.
Bhosoff notes that the discoveries at Kuntillet 'Ajrud have, in fact, provided interpreters with access to these Israelite perspectives.
In the Bible, God is a God who knows.
When Yahweh speaks to his divine council in Genesis 3:22 and declares, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil,” the dependent qualifier “knowing” proves meaningful.
Prior to partaking of the fruit, the man was already “like” God. Not only was man immortal, but also man, as gardener, performed the task of a god. Hence, partaking of the fruit produced a specific result, the man became like the gods “knowing.”
With this understanding, it seems meaningful that immediately after leaving the Garden of Eden, “the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain” (Gen. 4:1).
From both a biblical and general Near Eastern perspective, Eve’s description of this event leaves the role of God in this process perhaps intentionally ambiguous: “I have procreated a man with Yahweh.”
Therefore, if the views concerning God’s sexuality endorsed by Joseph Fielding Smith, et al. are primitive, they are primitive only in the sense that they reflect a venerable ancient tradition.
--E.E.
Science is pretty clear how human mating came to be.... You are the one suggesting this very primitive, earthly, animal form of mating is the one the God of the Universe used.
And biblical theology is also pretty clear.
Therefore, given the fact that the Bible presents the gods—including Israel’s deity, as sexual beings that participate in a “very primitive, earthly, animal form of mating,” are we to assume that you would categorize biblical theology as primitive?
Of course if directed towards the average person on the street today, any question regarding God’s sexuality would no doubt produce a quizzical look, followed by an emphatic “No!,” however, the same question, if directed towards the average person in the ancient Near East would produce the exact opposite result, “Well, of course God has sex!”
While perhaps a bit shocking from a contemporary perspective—as witnessed for example via this very thread—the notion of God as a sexual being is really quite ancient.
The discovery of the pottery shards from Kuntillet 'Ajrud which depict Yahweh with his wife, illustrate that Yahweh himself, at least in some Israelite minds, was a sexual being; for a nice general survey see Margalit, Baruch, “The Meaning and Significance of Asherah,” Vetus Testamentum 40 (1990): 264-297.
Given this prevailing trend, when it comes to the biblical view of God’s sexuality, absence of evidence is not evidence of abstinence.
In reality, the Bible contains important evidence suggesting that God and his heavenly host were, in fact, sexual beings. While this observation may seem primitive to some Christians, biblical authors clearly felt quite comfortable portraying their deity in sexual terms.
One recent study devoted to this topic includes Willem Boshoff's “Sexual Encounters of a Different Kind: Hosea 1:2 as Foreplay to the Message of the Book of Hosea,” in Religion and Theology 1(1994): 329-339.
In the article, Boshoff discusses the fact that Hos 1:2 relies upon the imagery of conjugal infidelity in relationship to the Yahweh-Israel relationship. Boshoff suggests that the imagery and vocabulary in the book of Hosea reflect the multifaceted religious situation in ancient Israel wherein Hosea was one of many competing religious viewpoints.
Bhosoff notes that the discoveries at Kuntillet 'Ajrud have, in fact, provided interpreters with access to these Israelite perspectives.
In the Bible, God is a God who knows.
When Yahweh speaks to his divine council in Genesis 3:22 and declares, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil,” the dependent qualifier “knowing” proves meaningful.
Prior to partaking of the fruit, the man was already “like” God. Not only was man immortal, but also man, as gardener, performed the task of a god. Hence, partaking of the fruit produced a specific result, the man became like the gods “knowing.”
With this understanding, it seems meaningful that immediately after leaving the Garden of Eden, “the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain” (Gen. 4:1).
From both a biblical and general Near Eastern perspective, Eve’s description of this event leaves the role of God in this process perhaps intentionally ambiguous: “I have procreated a man with Yahweh.”
Therefore, if the views concerning God’s sexuality endorsed by Joseph Fielding Smith, et al. are primitive, they are primitive only in the sense that they reflect a venerable ancient tradition.
--E.E.
-
_truth dancer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4792
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm
Hi EE...
The form of procreation used by humans began in the reptiles quite some time ago.
The ancient myths and stories throughout the world are based on their particular understanding and knowledge of the time.
The six day creation, Eve coming from Adam's rib, (or being placed on the earth from another planet), the Noachian Flood, etc. etc. etc. are stories.... I don't consider them "primitive" stories, I consider them myths based on the understanding of the time.
If one disregards science and wants to go with the "science" of those who lived five thousand years ago, then so be it.
I think most folks today, have let go of some of those myths that seem certainly to go against modern knowledge.
My observation is most people find the idea of Gods and angels having sex with female virgins, as something along the line of fairies, leprechauns, and talking donkeys. NOT because they do not understand ancient myths are full of such stories but because modern knowledge has given us a greater understanding of life AND its mysteries.
Many people today (I think the exception is in the LDS community) do not conceive of the God of the Universe as a human male on a planet, so the idea of human procreation, seems remote.
I'm not trying to argue that God isn't a human male who had sex with at least one virgin... (just because it makes no sense to me doesn't mean it can't happen), I'm suggesting the idea that God of the Universe had to use a type of procreation begun in reptiles seems to REALLY limit God.
:-)
~dancer~
Therefore, given the fact that the Bible presents the gods—including Israel’s deity, as sexual beings that participate in a “very primitive, earthly, animal form of mating,” are we to assume that you would categorize biblical theology as primitive?
The form of procreation used by humans began in the reptiles quite some time ago.
The ancient myths and stories throughout the world are based on their particular understanding and knowledge of the time.
The six day creation, Eve coming from Adam's rib, (or being placed on the earth from another planet), the Noachian Flood, etc. etc. etc. are stories.... I don't consider them "primitive" stories, I consider them myths based on the understanding of the time.
If one disregards science and wants to go with the "science" of those who lived five thousand years ago, then so be it.
I think most folks today, have let go of some of those myths that seem certainly to go against modern knowledge.
My observation is most people find the idea of Gods and angels having sex with female virgins, as something along the line of fairies, leprechauns, and talking donkeys. NOT because they do not understand ancient myths are full of such stories but because modern knowledge has given us a greater understanding of life AND its mysteries.
Many people today (I think the exception is in the LDS community) do not conceive of the God of the Universe as a human male on a planet, so the idea of human procreation, seems remote.
I'm not trying to argue that God isn't a human male who had sex with at least one virgin... (just because it makes no sense to me doesn't mean it can't happen), I'm suggesting the idea that God of the Universe had to use a type of procreation begun in reptiles seems to REALLY limit God.
:-)
~dancer~
-
_harmony
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
Over the years, I've come to think of the immaculate conception and related subjects a little differently (no surprise there, for those who know me well!)
Point 1: If we can figure out how to create life via artificial insemination or external fertilization, so can God.
Point 2: Jesus was God before he came to this earth; therefore he didn't need a body. His spirit wore the body he used here like a set of clothes, but it was not necessary for his exaltation.
Point 3: I think Mary was sort of a surrogate. If God could create Adam from nothing but dust, God could create a child within Mary without having to engage in intercourse.
Point 1: If we can figure out how to create life via artificial insemination or external fertilization, so can God.
Point 2: Jesus was God before he came to this earth; therefore he didn't need a body. His spirit wore the body he used here like a set of clothes, but it was not necessary for his exaltation.
Point 3: I think Mary was sort of a surrogate. If God could create Adam from nothing but dust, God could create a child within Mary without having to engage in intercourse.
-
_ajax18
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6914
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am
Again, we're not arguing that God did not have the power to get Mary pregnant by a means other than sexual intercourse. We're just saying that it seems likely that this is how it happened. At least to me it does.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.