Jack Kemp

Just when you thought they couldn't go any lower

https://www.theblaze.com/news/professor-says-virgin-mary-didnt-give-consent-to-being-impregnated-with-baby-jesus

Eric Sprankle, an associate professor of Clinical Psychology and Sexuality Studies at Minnesota State University Mankato, tweeted that he wasn't quite sure if the Virgin Mary had given "consent" when an angel came down from the heavens and told her that she would conceive the Christ child.

On Monday, Sprankle wrote, "The virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen. There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario. Happy Holidays."

End excerpt.

A word from Tim:

Perhaps this dimwit missed the Gospel reading of the Annunciation:

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.{(Luke1:30=38)

Sounds to me like Gabriel asked permission for this, and Mary gave her consent.

Besides, the Creator has no obligation to ask for consent like some randy bar patron in a cheap hookup. Sorry, but The Almighty DEFINES what is good or not.

Jack Kemp adds:

And a further quote from this idiocy by Prof. Spankle...

The user wrote, "Sorry. LK 1 26:38 states clearly that the angel communicated God's plan for Mary and in verse 38 she agreed. Whether you believe or disbelieve, it helps if you actually read the text."

Sprankle responded, "The biblical god regularly punished disobedience. The power difference (deity vs mortal) and the potential for violence for saying 'no' negates her 'yes.' To put someone in this position is an unethical abuse of power at best and grossly predatory at worst."

Tim replies:

God only punishes SIN, you dope. Mary was free to say no and that would have been that. Of course, had she done so she would not have been rewarded as she was. Catholics consider her "the Queen of Heaven" and see her as the greatest of all Created beings. She would have just been some unknown Jewish girl otherwise.

Not only is this "scholar" projecting modern ideas on ancient society, he is anthropomorphizing God and, frankly, passing judgment on the One who defines all things.

Oh, and if The Lord is so vindictive, why hasn't He punished him?

Oh, and it should be pointed out that young Jewish girls dreamed of being mother to the Messiah. In short, it was a dream come true for Mary. Now Mary was a pious and humble woman who probably didn't seek the glory, but it was like being offered the starring role in Gone with the Wind or a billion dollars, or sole ownership of Facebook, or whatnot. She could have turned it down but few would have.

Funny; feminists are happy to force women like that Blassey Fordd gal into the spotlight to advance their agenda yet think it somehow wrong of God, who created everything, to ask nicely if she would do it.

Fay Voshell adds:

In the time of King Manaseh the Idolator, who profaned the Temple by introducing idols into it, the keepers of the Temple removed the Ark of the Covenant to prevent its contamination, and sent it by trusted couriers "down the river" into, I believe, Egypt. For reasons that I cannot go into at this time, the expedition lost contact with "the home front," and after Manaseh's death, the succeeding king (whose name I have not time to look up) endeavored to put things to rights and for his first act, purified the Temple. He also gave orders for the return of the Ark.

Here's where things get dicey. The Literalists such as my mother-in-law insist that, because "the orders were given," that meant that the Ark was returned, just because the orders were given. However, many other people insist, equally strongly, that just because an order is given does not necessarily mean that it is obeyed; and in this case, since the whereabouts of the Ark was no longer known, the order could not be carried out. The Bible says nowhere that the Ark was returned, and indeed, when soon after the stated events, the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem and the Temple, no word is mentioned by them of their having captured the holiest of the Jews' sacred icons -- as surely would have been the case if the Ark HAD been returned. My mother-in-law was unable to account for that and became uncharacteristically vague when I challenged her (gently). And there is a tradition that the Ark remains today in the care of a monastery in Ethiopia -- see "The Sword and The Stone," by Graham Hancock. Light reading -- over 500 pages.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1488 words, total size 10 kb.