God Having Sex with Mary

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:20 pm

ajax18 wrote: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.

Why?

I think that Harmony's deduction makes just as much sense.

Post by **_harmony** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:37 pm

ajax18 wrote: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.

Joseph Smith notwithstanding, I don't see God as necessarily tied to the earthly ways of creation. In other words, life can be created without sexual intercourse. Taking the concept of God overpowering Mary and them having vaginal sexual intercourse (something I think is highly irregular and too earthbound for the concept I have of God), I prefer to point out that there are other ways of creating a child than sexual intercourse. If it's possible for God to create a man out of dust, it's possible for him to implant a child into Mary.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:11 pm

Hi Ajax...

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.

If I want to send a message to someone in China, I COULD write a letter, climb in a boat, row across the ocean, walk a few hundred miles to her house and deliver the letter... just like someone would have had to do a few thousand years ago. OR, living in this more advanced era, I could send an email.

What baffles me is the idea that the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE would use some very primitive earthly way (the way we as animals use) to share his DNA (if one goes with the idea that God has DNA he had to share with Mary... of course this begs the question, where did God's DNA come from since we know our human DNA has the history of the plant and animal life on our planet but that is another thread)! :-)

My point is... why does it make sense to you that God would use a form of procreation like us rather than some much more advanced method since (I'm assuming) you think God is quite a bit more amazing, powerful, knowledgeable than we earthly humans?

This speaks to my difficulty in accepting the LDS concept of God... it sounds so much like a regular human guy... not the amazing, omnipotent, holy, grand essence that I could imagine. And I well know that my imagination is limited by my earthly experience/DNA.

I just could never fit this whole God is a man concept into my brain, heart, and spirit!

~dancer~

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:28 pm

My thought was that God probably gave her a priesthood blessing. That may have been why she was carried away in the spirit or overshadowed. He simply laid his hand on her head, or on her tummy, and the implantation of the child in the womb was complete.

I think that insisting that the only way, or the most likely way that God impregnated Mary was through sexual intercourse is both primitive, and, to be frank, perverse.

Post by **_Enuma Elish** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:58 pm

And here we have it; posters Liz and Truth Dancer view the notion of God’s sexuality as “perverse,” “primitive,” and “reptilian-like.” In contrast, Latter-day Saints tend to define sexuality as something much more holy.

In this regard, Latter-day Saints are, in reality, quite in harmony with the biblical perspective which clearly teaches that the power gained by men and women to procreate via divine sexuality reflects the very power used by the gods themselves:

“See, the man has become like one of us, knowing” (Gen 3:22).

As biblical scholar Marc Brettler has observed, the Eden myth addresses the topic of “immortality lost and sexuality gained’; Marc Zvi Brettler, How To Read the Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2005): 45.

The tree of “knowledge” defines the fruit as a power that specifically produces intimate or sexual knowledge:

"Only after the primordial couple eats from the tree do they gain sexual awareness. Indeed, immediately after this story concludes, we read ‘Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain’ (Gen. 4:1). That is, eating from the tree of ‘knowledge’ leads to a very specific type of ‘knowing.’ Nowhere in the text is this knowledge depicted as intellectual or ethical;" Ibid. 45-46.

Post by **_ozemc** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:16 pm

Enuma Elish wrote:And here we have it; posters Liz and Truth Dancer view the notion of God’s sexuality as “perverse,” “primitive,” and “reptilian-like.” In contrast, Latter-day Saints tend to define sexuality as something much more holy.

In this regard, Latter-day Saints are, in reality, quite in harmony with the biblical perspective which clearly teaches that the power gained by men and women to procreate via divine sexuality reflects the very power used by the gods themselves:

“See, the man has become like one of us, knowing” (Gen 3:22).

As biblical scholar Marc Brettler has observed, the Eden myth addresses the topic of “immortality lost and sexuality gained’; Marc Zvi Brettler, How To Read the Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2005): 45.

The tree of “knowledge” defines the fruit as a power that specifically produces intimate or sexual knowledge:

"Only after the primordial couple eats from the tree do they gain sexual awareness. Indeed, immediately after this story concludes, we read ‘Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain’ (Gen. 4:1). That is, eating from the tree of ‘knowledge’ leads to a very specific type of ‘knowing.’ Nowhere in the text is this knowledge depicted as intellectual or ethical;" Ibid. 45-46.

Well, I think clearly the notion that seems to have been put forward is why would God have to have sex like humans do, if He's really God?

Surely the maker of everything that we can see, and all of which we can't see, would not HAVE to have sex that way. Not saying that He couldn't if He so chooses, but it does kind of put Him in a box to say that human sex is the only way Mary could have been made pregnant by Him. The God I worship is not limited to physical, human attributes. Rather insulting to Him, in my view.

As to whatever is said in the Bible about God's sexuality, it is clear that the Bible was written by men, for men, whether it had divine influence or not, and, as such, will be "man-centric", if you will. God making Mary pregnant would naturally be depicted in the human way to people living 2000 years ago. Doesn't make it real, though.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:23 pm

EE...

You have completely, totally misrepresented my perspective.

And here we have it; posters Liz and Truth Dancer view the notion of God’s sexuality as “perverse,” “primitive,” and “reptilian-like.” In contrast, Latter-day Saints tend to define sexuality as something much more holy.

WHAT?

Quite the contrary... first I do not believe God is an advanced primate but... going with that assumption (you may be right), I can't image the God of the universe not being about a zillion, quadrillion, bazillion times MORE holy than mere mortals.

Because I see the possibility of the God of the Universe being something WAY beyond humans in NO WAY SUGGESTS human sexuality isn't an amazing, wonderful, advanced (for animals) incredible form of union. PLEASE understand this point.

I see HUMAN form of mating most likely as less advanced than a God who has existed for eternity (if this is so). Since human mating is very new to the scene.

YOU are the one who is equating our form of mating with GOD.

Unless you deny evolution, you will admit that our form of earthly mating stems from reptiles. Are you suggesting you do not agree with science on this issue? YOU seem to think there is something uncomfortable with this fact...not me.

I believe human sexuality is a fabulous, holy, amazing form of communication, unlike anything that exists on our planet nevertheless, it is very new to the universe and if there is some form of advanced beings I can't imagine this very new form of mating to be what still exists after another trillion billion years.

~dancer~

Post by **_Jason Bourne** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:26 pm

truth dancer wrote:Hi Ajax...

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.

If I want to send a message to someone in China, I COULD write a letter, climb in a boat, row across the ocean, walk a few hundred miles to her house and deliver the letter... just like someone would have had to do a few thousand years ago. OR, living in this more advanced era, I could send an email.

What baffles me is the idea that the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE would use some very primitive earthly way (the way we as animals use) to share his DNA (if one goes with the idea that God has DNA he had to share with Mary... of course this begs the question, where did God's DNA come from since we know our human DNA has the history of the plant and animal life on our planet but that is another thread)! :-)

My point is... why does it make sense to you that God would use a form of procreation like us rather than some much more advanced method since (I'm assuming) you think God is quite a bit more amazing, powerful, knowledgeable than we earthly humans?

This speaks to my difficulty in accepting the LDS concept of God... it sounds so much like a regular human guy... not the amazing, omnipotent, holy, grand essence that I could imagine. And I well know that my imagination is limited by my earthly experience/DNA.

I just could never fit this whole God is a man concept into my brain, heart, and spirit!

~dancer~

Maybe our form of procreation is the highest form? Who knows?

Are we ashamed of Sex? I think it is pretty great and if there is an after life I hope sex is part of it-or something better!!!

Oh no, now I await the flames!

Post by **_truth dancer** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:30 pm

Hi Jason,

Maybe our form of procreation is the highest form? Who knows?

I don't think it is possible. The universe is not static. How or why would the unvierse create something so new and have it all stop? Our form of sexuality is sooooooooooooo new on the scene.

Are we ashamed of Sex?

Are you kidding... NOT IN THE LEAST!

I think it is pretty great

UMmmm.... YEAH!

and if there is an after life I hope sex is part of it-or something better!!!

The something better is the key phrase. OF COURSE there will be something better... it has to be, in my opinion.

The universe continues to bring forth new depth, new emotion, new pleasure, new EVERYTHING. We are at the beginning. Just imagine what is to come!

~dancer~

Post by **_Enuma Elish** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:39 pm

Truth Dancer,

You have completely, totally misrepresented my perspective.

I see.

Well, thank you then for setting me straight.

Clearly from your perspective, we primates therefore, owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the reptiles for the almighty gift of sexuality, which their primitive mating acts, via evolutionary science, did so nobly bestow.

Praise the serpent!