30 minutes

[varrin]

I haven't written a blog entry in a while. It seems I've had some complicated (= long) trains of thought and just never seem to finish them. The result is that, while my facebook status gets updated semi-regularly, there's not much substantial content flowing from my brain. In the interest of solving that, I hereby give myself 30 minutes to get

Comments

[justusgirlz]

Wow, I didn't think it possible, but you've been thinking in even *more* overtime than usual. Interesting post. I'm finding that more people seem to be "getting" the whole charity vs. taxation thing lately. Don't know if it's because I've moved to a new location, because of a very different circle of friends that I'm used to, because the economy and recent political development or a mix of all of that in various percentages. The good news is, people seem to be listening more, asking more questions and not falling back on the status quo.

Your heretical edition of the Virgin Birth is actually a new one to me (go figure!) I always figured it was Joseph, otherwise, God was a rapist. Your spin is very interesting, but it won't keep me from using the Virgin Birth story as a prime example that abstinence doesn't always work. ;-)

[varrin]

The rights, obligation, and charity section is a brief summary of the idea. So far I have 3 pages on an essay that is likely to go 5 or 6 if I cut what I've already written by 30-50%.

As for God being a rapist, Mary said (to the angel), "May it be to me as you have said." (Luke 1:38) And, for the record, according to the text, that was before she actually became pregnant ("The Holy Spirit *will* come upon you..." in v.35). Doesn't sound like rape to me. Yes, everyone thinks of Joseph, but really that story wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. I would contend that Joseph is actually the *least* likely father.

I guess all the abstinence literature should say 99.999999999% effective instead of 100% ;) ;) ;)

V-

[justusgirlz]

What Mary said sounds more like resignation than rapturous joy at the prospect. Kindof an old-school, begrudging "Yes, dear." I went and read a Luke 1:26-38. You left out the part where she acknowledged being a servant. "I am the Lord's servant . . ." which, back in the day, that's what women were - second class citizens -well, heh, not *even* citizens at that. Besides, like you said, the angel said she ". . . *will* be with child and give birth to a son, and *you are to* give him the name Jesus . . .The Holy Spirit *will* come upon you, and the power of the most high *will overshadow* you." Emphasis mine, of course. There is NO question whether or not she has a choice - these things WILL happen. The angel's words are commandments, not requests. Then again, maybe she was given a choice - do this or be sent to hell. It's just not in the verse. But again, her answer certainly has no joy in it, (and you'd think she'd be giddy with delight at the prospect of bearing God's son, no?) and that says volumes

[varrin]

Yes, the servant reply would be what was expected of a woman at the time. Obviously the context for the story was not the 21st century western world. And your conclusion regarding choice doesn't really fit with the whole of the Biblical narrative. Commands were given and broken by men *and* women (obviously that still happens). And there are examples of individual commands (though, overall, that's less common) that are not followed (think Jonah). As to whether there is a choice or not, the (apparent) paradox of God's sovereignty and our free will is important to understand as fully as practical. The truth is, every Biblical actor had a choice. Many of them responded positively as Mary did, but many of them did not in very big ways (Eve, Adam, Abraham, David, Jonah, even Peter). Given the overall context, Mary's response appears fitting (i.e. not culturally bizarre) and positive