CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Last night my wife was screaming, "Oh God, oh God, oh God..." so either God was raping her or I have reached God level. I don't think I've reached God level so it must be the former ;)
God is a rapist! I knew Mary very well; she was an emotional wreck after she had to carry her rapist's baby inside of her. I'm just glad Joseph was there to provide emotional support.
Did Mary have a choice? No, then she was raped one way or another, no way to suger coat it.
Did God physically rape her? No, but he did force his will on her, so call it what you want , say what you want, but I still think God should be in Magens Law, just in case.
Thats false. Rape has a specific definition. In order for the definition to fit the situation God would have to force her to have sex.
Rape: the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
God cannot even commence the rape since he cannot disobey himself. Sexual intercourse never occured. Therefore rape isn't the right term to use. No matter how you try to put it out it doesn't qualify as rape. She gave virgin birth. Meaning the egg just grew and God shaped it to be Jesus. Also God didn't force this upon her. She was in agreement the entire time only asking questions about her understanding of what's possible and what's impossible.
Duress also doesn't fit.
Duress: 1 : forcible restraint or restriction 2 : compulsion by threat ; specifically : unlawful constraint
Duress Does Fit. God Had A Track Record Of Severe Punishment For Not Doing What He Said, So If God Says You Will Have The Baby You Better Have That Baby. Duress Established.
Yeah, and like I told you in my other argument... The Angel Gabriel made Zechariah mute because he questioned him. What would have happened if Mary questioned him as well?
Were You There? Let Me Pull A Bible Defender Trick. Does The Bible Say She Didn't Feel Threatened? Nope, It Just Says She Said Ok, Not Why She Agreed. Did God Threaten Zechariah Before Taking His Ability To Speak?
Of course not. Im just looking at what she said. The angel wasn't threatening her at all. She was okay with it. It cannot be rape necause sex isnt present. Duress cannot be present since a threat isnt present. Nothing wrong happened here. Can you totes show me why God is in the wrong here?
Mary Only Said Yes Because She Knew A No Answer Would Result In Some Kind Of Disfigurement. Why Do You Bring Up Rape? I Am Just Arguing About Duress. The Fact That You Are Bringing Up Rape For No Reason Is A Sign You Are Losing.
Mary Only Said Yes Because She Knew A No Answer Would Result In Some Kind Of Disfigurement
Can you prove that?
Why Do You Bring Up Rape? I Am Just Arguing About Duress. The Fact That You Are Bringing Up Rape For No Reason Is A Sign You Are Losing.
No, its me following the debate. The debate is about rape. Of rape isn't the case then its entire definition doesn't follow.
In that sense duress can't be the case since there was no threat. The angel never threatened here. You are basing you argument off of a possibility instead of what was documented.
God Has A Track Record For Punishment. He Made Zecariah A Mute. The Important Thing Is That You Don't Have Anywhere Where It Says She Said Yes Without Duress.
You Just Got Through Saying That God Hands Out Punishments Without Threatening People First. Mary Would Still Have Fear Without Threats.
God Has A Track Record For Punishment. He Made Zecariah A Mute. The Important Thing Is That You Don't Have Anywhere Where It Says She Said Yes Without Duress
You are still going on probability and not actual occurence.
I posted a verse that says where she agreed. I think it was Luke 1:38.
You Just Got Through Saying That God Hands Out Punishments Without Threatening People First
Luke 1:38 doesn't say Mary agreed with no fear, it just says she said ok
I agree. Where is the duress though? Where is the threat?
I asked "Did God Threaten Zechariah Before Taking His Ability To Speak?"
Did I? Oops. My fault. Im not knowledgable on that situation so I'll take your word for it. Its like the Jonah and the whale story. Im with ya here
Boom, fear leads to duress.
Sometimes, but duress is the:
Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform.
Now Im agreeing that if Mary just said no he would have committed duress. He didn't do so in this case though, but he has in other places in the bible. Are we totes getting on the same page?
Well, we established duress based on your old definition compulsion by threat before you changed it so that you could be right. Sucks you can't admit that you are wrong.
You are saying that fear is a threat and there may have been fear, therefore it is possible that she felt threatened, therefore duress was possible. So, you can't eliminate duress which is what I was arguing.
My fault. Ww dis establish a definition. My fault. Lets totes follow the one already set.
You are saying that fear is a threat and there may have been fear, therefore it is possible that she felt threatened, therefore duress was possible.
My argument isn't about fear. Its about rape. I provided a definition of rape already. So, like duress is possible, yes, but there is no way to tell if the angel threatened her. Her wor choice, to me, shows that she wasn't. I eliminate duress because I dont see any duress. It can be a possibility, but I totes dont see it.
We havent established duress in Mary's case. Other cases? Sure. Mary's? Not yet. I don't see any duress in Mary's case. Either way, for the debate's sake, Mary wasn't raped.
Oh okay. So show me where duress is absolutely present, in Mary's case, in the bible. Give me a verse or something. Don't even try to wiggle out of this, it's either there or not. Do you have concrete evidence? Totes show me a verse.
I asked you for proof first. You have to show where it specifically says that there wasn't duress. We logically determined that duress existed unless it says there wasn't any.
You are asking me to provide the absense of duress. That's illogical. You are making a claim that duress is present. I would like for you to show me where that is. Here, I have even provided the entire passage.
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid,Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
Show me, where is duress present? Remember compulsion by threat or force must be present in order to qualify as duress. So, work you magic.
Fear does not always lead to threats. These establishments were not fully complied on between us. For one the angel calmed her down, she was placed back into a non-fear like state, so duress is not possible.
No, it proves me right. Before the conversation starts we know that Mary is scared of angels coming. Why would she be afraid of angels coming? Because she knows they bring punishment whenever they propose God's plan. That passage shows that Mary knows that a punishment comes with a no answer and is really coerced into the yes answer out of fear.
She couldn't have been coerced. For one duress, in its best form, is threatening someone, in the moment, into consent. Mary agreed with her own consent and even has a song a few verses later showing her devoution to God. You are failing to understand the applicability of duressin this situation.
We Have Established That The Presence Of Angels Means That There Is A Good Chance Punishment Is Coming, And That Mary Was Uneasy. Ignoring Facts Doesn't Make You Right.
We logically determined that duress existed unless it says there wasn't any.
No, we determined that is exists in other places in the bible. The bible doesn't have to explicitly state that "duress is not present here". Don't play stupid.
Focus on my other argument. Show me where duress is present. Do I need to provide the passage again?
26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid,Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
Focus on my other argument. Show me where duress is present. Do I need to provide the passage again?
Wow, you post multiple arguments because you are grasping at straws and don't even wait for me to answer your post with this passage before posting it again and trying to word it like I was dodging your argument.
And Mary was 12, so both god and Joe (Joe was by all accounts much older) were having sex with a "child". Yet, all these religious fanatics go crazy when you mention the pedo word. Many religious people just make up their own facts to rationalize it. Others (here is my favorite excuse) say, times were different and times have changed. Like god couldn't see into the future or delay puberty with a snap of his mighty fingers (or is it, the wave of his magic wand?)
Well, I don't think you are going to hell, but I do not think God was a rapist. If Mary conceived a child based on divine intervention, then I don't think you can call it rape. After all, a child can be a product of a rape but not the rape itself.
Dang, you are so nice. If calling God a rapist doesn't get you in hell, not much will. You seem like a better candidate for God than God. You wouldn't be so quick to send people to hell and you have a website where people can come together instead of trying to prevent people from working together like the Tower of Babel.
Vote Andy for God 2018!
Note: I am just competing with Joe to see who can punch their ticket to hell sooner. ;)
If you die before me, please put in a good word for me. Tell the Lord I'm not as bad as I come across and every once in a while I get lucky and tell a good joke ;)
Did Joseph say he wasn't okay with this? I don't think so. This was a holy moment. He stayed with her. Both of them were okay with it. I don't see what the problem is. Also, she was acting in obedience. He would logically do the same.
[Joe rolls eyes] Is that what they were calling it back then; is that how it was presented? And they (Joseph and Mary) bought it, hook, line and sinker? ;)
Well, in all fairness, I don't think God stuck his divine penis in Mary. He created man from dust, so I think it is safe to assume that he could have found some alternative way to impregnate a woman.
Oh, yeah! It would have made a much more interesting story... And imagine how different the art would be! Michelangelo's Pieta would seem kind of weird.
You aren't taking the time to truly evaluate my argument.
1, 2, 4, 5 - If he is being charged with rape, how would he demonstrate any of that is true?
1) He exists beyond space-time. He must be a metaphysical being. That is self explanatory. He wouldn't have sex with a material being. God doesn't have sex. It serves no purpose.
2) God cannot rape. It's against his own accord. He cannot disobey himself and so he cannot rape.
3 - Your claim was that it didn't matter if she consented, now you are using it as evidence. Make up your mind, does it matter or not.
This is why you suck at evaluating arguments.
Rape: the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
God only planted a seed. Intercourse never occured. Consent is not a factor here any longer since the definition can't fit the situation. If one won't take that in as evidence then Mary's consent is the deciding factor.
I am only arguing that if Mary hadn't consented it would matter, and you have proven me correct.
False, I have proven you incorrect. Again, the definition doesn't suit the situation. He didn't force her to have intercourse. Your position is not fitting at all. You are incorrect. Just face it.
Now allow me to continue with my fourth and fifth point.
4) Since sex never occured consent isn't necessary to determine rape since the definition never qualifies.
5) Planting a seed is not sex. Again, see and read and understand point 4. It's the best and strongest point.
It never ceases to amaze me how people claim to know the nature of a being they have never physically interacted with ;)
Remember that doctor that planted his seed in women who came to him to be artificially inseminated? He got in trouble. How come God got away with it? ;)
Now you are telling me you cant think normally? I have already explained it.
Remember that doctor that planted his seed in women who came to him to be artificially inseminated? He got in trouble. How come God got away with it? ;)
Biblical times vs Now. Very different. This was a holy moment. This wasn't against the law in any place on earth at the time. So don't compare new times to old times acting as if they are one in the same. They aren't.
It probably would fly in most countries. However, God is not bound by human law. He is only bound by transendent law, which is his own.
Jesus is supposed to return from heaven, not from a person's womb. He existed before he was even placed in human form. He needed a vessel to become the physical manifestation of salvation. Mary was chosen and gladly complied.
It would have been more effective if Joseph had been the vessel. The Jesus would claim to be the son of God and people would be like, "Prove it." and He would be like, "He's my father AND my mother!" and that would have been the end of that (and this) conversation. I mean, if God can just "plant His seed" in an unusual way, then He should be able to plant it anywhere. Hell, he could have made Jesus a Cabbage Patch Kid ;)
Joseph is a male. He cannot give birth to anything. He had done so by selecting a woman most fit for the job. Mary qualified. God selected her. What does this have to do with God being accused of rape?
It was not optimal because here we are discussing the reality of God. If He had chosen Joseph, we would know that the only way that could happen is if there's a God ;)
I Say He Doesn't Do Anything You Say He Does. Since Your Argument Is Only Hearsay. So, Your Claims Are Unjustified And Unverifiable. They Can't Be Used As Evidence. Your Whole Argument Is Not Based On Any Facts.
Then you really cant think. If you can't admit to being wrong then just leave me be. I have already explained them to you. All of them are perfectly valid. I'm like done with you now. If you wanna be so stubborn then dont waste my time.
You Are Ridiculous. Your Only Claim That He Can't Rape Is Because He Doesn't Really Exist. You Can't Think Critically When It Comes To God. Some Of Us Can Imagine The Possibility Of A God. You Can't, So Your Arguments Suck.
Your Only Claim That He Can't Rape Is Because He Doesn't Really Exist.
You totes need to re-read my arguments. My point is that the definition of rape doesn't fit the situation. That was my argument. Then backed it up by showing how the situation doesn't fit rape in any practical sense.
You Can't Think Critically When It Comes To God.
I disagree. I highly doubt you would contest me when it comes to religious knowledge when we are discussion the Lord.
Some Of Us Can Imagine The Possibility Of A God.
I agree.
You Can't, So Your Arguments Suck.
Ad Hominem much? Also I can totes fathom a god. I can understand the logical consistencies with a god. You don't do anything but insult me. I highly doubt you can prove that God raped her. If you can why don't you so kindly place an argument on the other side and show everybody that you are correct.
You Are Missing My Point. You Are Saying That It Doesn't Fit The Definition Of Rape Because Of Claims You Are Making That You Don't Know And Can't Demonstrate.
Hey, Guess What, Biblical Knowledge Is Not A Factor When Thinking Critically.
All I Would Have To Do Is Convince Mary To Testify That She Didn't Consent And You Have No Defense.
If I Were Trying To Put God Away For Rape, I Would Definitely Need To Work Hard, But I Would Just Convince The Jury That She Was Being Pressured When She Said She Was A Servant Of God. I Know It Is A Big If, But She Is Claiming That It Didn't Matter That Mary Agreed.
Why did you capitalize the first letter of every word? lol
Didn't matter? What do you mean? Also, Mary didn't really agree... An angel came down and told Mary that she would be giving birth to the Messiah and that his name would be Jesus, and Mary was like, "seriously? Alright... Cool."
So your argument that she didn't consent, is kind of accurate... But she didn't mind either.
Oh, and here's an interesting side note... Before the angel spoke to Mary, he revealed himself to Zechariah and told him that his wife would have a baby. Zechariah's wife was old and barren, so that was surprising news. So surprising, that Zechariah was like, "Wait... What?" The angel didn't appreciate Zachariah questioning him, so he made him mute and told him that his voice wouldn't return until after his child was born. The angel also told him what the child's name would be.
So, Zechariah's wife, Elisabeth, becomes pregnant and is totally surprised, since Zechariah was mute and couldn't explain to her what happened. She finally realizes that divine intervention made her pregnant and somehow she learns what the child's name would be (I forget how she figured it out... Maybe Zechariah wrote it down). Anyways, by the time she has the baby, everyone is like, "what are you going to name him?" So she tells them and they're like, "Nah, come on... Nobody's named that". All of a sudden, Zechariah's voice comes back and he says, "his name is John!".
So, that's the story of Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist's birth. John the Baptist was born miraculously before his cousin, Jesus. One of the interesting things about this is that Leonardo Da Vinci has a painting that he did in which he made the infant Jesus appear to be worshipping the infant John (the church he painted it for made him paint another one to correct some of the hidden messages)... And the figure that Michelangelo painted above the doorway of the Sistine Chapel is Zechariah, John's father.
I Have Been Trying To Nail God On Something For Years.He Has Escaped Me A Bunch In The Past And Now Is My Chance. I Know I Can Convince Her That She Is Only Happy Because She Knew There Would Be Consequences Otherwise. I Could Get Her To Change Her Mind. You Know, Something Like That. Kind Of Like Bad Boys 2.
What is there to demonstrate when logical explanations are all thats required? That is what I have done. You just wont admit defeat. Now please be a doll and totes buzz the f*ck off.
Ok, did she say it was ok for that to happen? Just because a friend comes over and says that you are going to have this guys baby doesn't mean he got consent. Some should be true for God.
I do recall her consenting. Luke 1:38 Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.
i don't think god would send somebody to hell. god loves one and all equally. so there's that. you're probably safe. ;)
also, there are, if you read greek mythology, or just percy jackson, instances that you ocme across, when gods have half human half god children.
and there are gods who do not like the idea of, well, bearing children for 9 months. i mean female gods probably don't.
so they just create a child, mixing their DNA and the other parent's DNA and all that normal stuff, and just create a kid, in probably less than 9 seconds. and there you go! no rape commited.
Mary seems too happy and peaceful about the aftermath so I suspect she actually wanted it. Calling it rape was her excuse to not get stoned for adultery.
But you know what indeed God is? A deadbeat dad. He didn't write a single check to support raising JC, plus his divine absence lead him to take up with a ragtag combo of strange men, wandering the countryside. And later when JC got in trouble with the law God didn't come bail him out and he ended up screaming "why have you forsaken, me!", which probably means he heard how God showered his other bastard son, Ace, with gifts and attention.
