• Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    Huh…I spent so much of my life concentrated on the fact that Mary was a lying slut who absolutely had sex with someone. Thus making Jesus not only NOT God’s child, but also by definition a bastard…that I never thought about the story from the perspective of it being true. If you take the story at face value, and God impregnated Mary in her sleep? That makes God a rapist who didn’t get consent.

    • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yep. Pretty fucked no matter which way you look at it…

      Has anyone informed you of Sithrak the Blind Gibberer?

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 months ago

      Actually an angel appeared and told Mary she was chosen. She said “aight bet.” So, technically consent.

      • danc4498@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Your boss shows up and says, “you’ve been chosen”. Say no and you’re fired…

    • Agent641@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      Jesus was a bastard who was BFFs with a prozzie, did violence against the wealthy, and spurned authority. God might not listen to Slayer, but I reckon Jesus would have

    • Grass@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 months ago

      In school I tried to bring up this theory that the three wise men all thought they were the father and came bearing gifts for that reason and mary was either lying or totally clueless/tricked. It wasn’t well received but nobody was able to refute it with relevant bile quotes or anything.

    • Synapse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Mary was not virgin until they changed the story later around A.D. 300, during the Romain Catholic Church.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You have a source to read that up? At least in 452, they (some) were already pretty sure about her being virgin.

        Dioscorus then moved to depose Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylaeum on the grounds that they taught the Word had been made flesh and not just assumed flesh from the Virgin and that Christ had two natures.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon

        Edit: the bible was written ca. 300 after christ tho. Probably because of this.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          452 is after 300 so that would be consistent with OP, however, here’s a “source” such as it is claiming her virginity in 150 AD https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

          OP might be confusing the adipartheos of Mary - the belief that she was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ. Some even go as so far as to imply Jesus wasn’t born like a human and emerged in some other way, which I’ll leave to the readers imagination.

    • Isoprenoid@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That makes God a rapist who didn’t get consent.

      If we take the story at face value, he did get consent.

      And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”

      • Luke 1:38