Did God commit Adultery?
 

I just thought of this a little while ago and would like to hear some other opinions on this.

Mary and Joseph were married, God impregnates Mary with Jesus, God is not married to Mary. Does this make either God or Mary an adulterer?

I know people will say that God did not have sex with Mary, but he did cause her to be pregnant while she was married to someone else. So any thoughts?

I always learned that Mary was impregnated before she and joseph actually married

If a doctor artificially inseminates a woman did he have sex with her?

If she is married is it considered adultery?

Edit- I think you're right Shani, I believe they weren't married yet.

Ok then.
I didn't know they weren't married yet, I'm not educated when it comes to the new testament.
As for the doctor with artificial insemination, the doctor is most likely not provider of the sperm. And as I said, I realize that God did not actually have sex with Mary.

MageB42066...they were pledged to be married...but the actual marriage ceremony had not yet taken place when she was "visited upon" by God

I'm fairly sure the definition of adultery doesn't include visitation by deities, and if it did they probably wouldn't be held to account so I wouldn't worry about it ;)

Adultery
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband

Nothing to be said about impregnation, so no. God did not commit adultery with Mary, and Mary did not commit adultery with God.

Ok, I had just started wondering about it while I tried to pass time during class.

As God's attorney, I would advise you that those are merely allegations and there is still limited evidence to prove any 'immaculate conception' occurred at all. We'll await an official conviction from the entirety of mankind (aka 'the jury') before releasing an official statement regarding this supposed divine rogering of Mary.

And no, I'm afraid a DNA test isn't possible. Don't press your luck, or a rep. will get smeared.

I bet if he had done the naughty with Mary, it would have brought tears to her eyes.

Actually, I believe that according to Biblical lore Jesus was conceived when the word of God reached her ear by way of Angelic message. I think ear-hole penetration should maybe be more of a concern than the adultery in this matter, eh?

This begs the question, does God have a wife?

I'm such a stirrer sometimes...

So are you saying that God doesn't have to abide by his/her own rules?

Do as I say, not as I do..

i would have thought this "problem" had been worked out through the story of abraham and issac. following the internal logic of the text, that is.

Not saying he shouldn't, but that he wouldn't. Since he makes the rules in the first place (allegedly) I'm fairly sure that means he's allowed to alter/bend/break them as he sees fit.

The traditional Christian/Judeo God (an omnipotent and omniscient God) cannot have rules or laws to follow. If he did he would be restricted in someway and hence not omnipotent - not God.

That is a very good point. Makes me wish I was God, that way I could do whatever the fuck I wanted too, but being omnicient would make things very boring because I would already know everything about everything, no experience would be new.

I think Gene Simmons also said that he wanted to be god too. Welcome to the club, who hasn't wanted to be god?

You can take it a step further and say an omnipotent being is a contradiction and cannot exist. It is an old objection to the doctrine of omnipotence of God. What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistible force (God)?

(a)Suppose God can create such a stone. Then there is a stone he cannot lift. So he cannot be omnipotent.
(b)Suppose God cannot create such a stone. Then there is something he cannot do. So again he is not omnipotent.

If this reasoning is correct, we shall have to conclude either (a) God does not exist, or (b) if God exists, then God is not omnipotent.

Or since god is omipotent, he can create such a stone, lift it, and still have it be unmovable, cause he is omnipotent and can have effect happen before cause.

Of course that doesn't make much sense and is one reason why I don't believe in an omnipotent or omniscient god.

Not only does that not make any sense, but it is incorrect.
If God can create a stone he can not move then that means he cannot move it. So your first sentence is totally askew.

I will say "yes" because I think Zeus is really "God."

I think its sad that people take things like that literally.

Mary and Joseph had sex before they were "officially" (ritually) married, aand Joseph is Jesus' biological parent.

The whole virgin mary thing is a farce, created by the people who believed in their view of marriage, and that sex before the marriage ritual is wrong. They conjured up this story to justify themselves. These are the same kind of persons that take the story of creation in the Bible literally.

According to God in the Bible, a man and woman is married when they have sex, not when they have done the whole ritual thing.

I never said that I took it literally, I am not, in fact, even christian. I don't even really belong to a mainstream religion at all, I was just wondering about that idea during class and decided to ask other peoples opinions about it. And no I do not personally believe that God is Jesus' father or that Jesus is part of a Trinity that makes up a divine being.

And the whole virgin thing is actually the church taking one meaning of a word that has two meanings, virgin can also mean "Young Woman".

As for Joseph being Jesus' biological father, you cannot prove that he was or that God was, that is why it is a matter of faith, and since you cannot prove either theory right or wrong, it makes each theory just as valid as the other.

It doesn't have to make any sense, he's god and can do whatever the hell he wants. :thumbsup:
And therefore by being god he can do anything, including, but not limited to, lifting an immovable stone and still have it be immovable.
That is what omnipotence means, the power goes outside the bounds of reason and logic.

And I think it's sad that people take things and twist them to suite their arguments.

The whole virgin Mary thing is not a farce about premarittal sex. It has nothing to do with the argument of it being that. It is so there would be no question that Joseph was NOT the biological father of Jesus but that GOD IS the father.

But it's irrelevant as you're going to believe what you wanna believe and anyone who doesn't agree with you you're going to call whatever you want.

I'm sorry, I just find that as a very funny question. God is the Creator- the source of all things- we are all his offspring- it's not like he "had sex" with Mary. In a way, I still don't beleive of Mary being a virgin, but I do believe that Jesus came into this world to be a wonderful light and messenger.

I'm sorry, but I just can't help but ask this...

If we're all gods offspring, and Mary had Jesus, and God is Jesus' father, then wouldn't that make Jesus inbred?

Sorry, but I just couldn't help myself.

lol..................God is not a Being with form, like us.......if that is what you are getting at.

I am afraid you are mistaken. Omnipotence does not mean that God can do anything, but it means that He can do with power anything that power can do. He has all the power that is or could be.

Can God make 2+2 = 6 ? Would the power of a ton of dynamite make two plus two equal six? Or the power of an atom bomb? Or of a hydrogen bomb? When these questions are asked it is readily seen that the truth of the multiplication tables is not in the realm of power. Power has nothing to do with it.

What you are refering to is the infinity of God. Here is a quote from Systematic Theology by L. Berkhoff.

"The infinity of God is that perfection of God by which He is free from all limitations. In ascribing it to God we deny that there are or can be any limitations to the divine Being or attributes. It implies that He is in no way limited by the universe, by this space-time world, or confined to the universe. It does not involve His identity with the sum-total of existing things, nor does it exclude the co-existence of derived and finite things, to which He bears relation."

With a definition like that, you may think that Berkhoff by saying that God is "free from all limitations" means that God can do anything at all. Yet even Berkhoff says on p. 80:

"In that sense we can speak of the potentia absoluta, or absolute power, of God. This position must be maintained over against those who, like Schleiermacher and Strauss, hold that God's power is limited to that which He actually accomplishes. But in our assertion of the absolute power of God it is necessary to guard against misconceptions. The Bible teaches us on the one hand that the power of God extends beyond that which is actually realized, Gen. 18:14; Jer. 32:27; Zech. 8:6; Matt. 3:9; 26:53. We cannot say, therefore, that what God does not bring to realization, is not possible for Him. But on the other hand it also indicates that there are many things which God cannot do. He can neither lie, sin, change, nor deny Himself, Num. 23:19; I Sam. 15:29; II Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:18; Jas. 1:13,17. There is no absolute power in Him that is divorced from His perfections, and in virtue of which He can do all kinds of things which are inherently contradictory."

When we speak of "no limitations" we are talking about rational categories or limitations within a rational category. Within the realm of power, we mean that God can do anything that it is logically possible for power to do. I.e., There is no limit on which powers in the category of "powers" that God can exercise. The category of powers, however, is itself restricted to the realm of things that are logically possible. This is why we are justified in using the "omni" prefix while maintaining that God cannot do anything whatsoever.

That is why even Berkhoff, while maintaining a "no limits" definition of infinite says, "There is no absolute power in Him that is divorced from His perfections". I.e., he supports the idea that there are rational restrictions on the category of "powers" when he says that there is no power of a certain kind.

You're thinking too small. The traditional Judeo-Christian God clearly exists outside of normal reality. His abilities exceed science. It's impossible for us to rationalize power on God's level, because we have nothing to compare it with. I'm sure He could make 2+2=6. He wrote the rules. He wrote logic that follows or questions the rules. He wrote the mind that has the logic...etc. As far as I know, His only 'limitation' is that he loves His creation and is devoted to it, and thus, us.
Limit simply means bounds. We don't have to use something familiar to compare God's limitless power to because the limit is moot.
Systematic Theology was a really good read, but Louis Berkhof is not the ultimate authority on God.
The only rational explaination is the irrational one. God exists before and beyond logic and knowledge as we know it. He exists above science.

To which I contend that such an ideology is a quick, convenient, and shoddy way to disregard arguments opposing a belief in something irrational which has no foundation for definitiveness.

Religion serves to explain what science cannot, or what people will not accept (humans who are egotistical in nature (everyone) will not accept the utter insignificance of existence). But to give the illusion of credibility they crush contestants with absurdity and irrebuttable explanations.

To which I respond that such an argument is a quick, convienient, and shoddy way to disregard arguments opposing a belief in something rational which has a foundation for definitiveness.

You still cannot prove that religious people are wrong, you can only theorize and try to rationalize that which is inherently irrational. And because of such, the belief in a god is just as valid as the belief in no god. :D

Biologically, Jesus is not God's son.

Biologically, Jesus had no father. Biologically, that argument is moot. Genetics is irrelevant in the case of Jesus and God. God was the being who created life in Mary's womb. That is why we call God the Father of Jesus. He did not impregnate her through normal methods.

umm... If Jesus had no father then the only chromosomes he had would have come from Mary, which would have made him not only a chick, but a cloned chick.

Was it consenual rape? Did God ask Mary's permission at all?

If Marry bare the so called God son, than she a whore. If God inpreginate Marry, he a rapist. Either way, the Christian religion is fucked up.

If you are kidding - Hahahaha. Good one.
If you arn't kidding - If God was a human being, then he would have chromosomes. If He was a human being, having born a child with Mary, He would have been Jesus' biological father. God is NOT human. God used Mary as more of a entry to the earth device for Jesus to become human. Because Jesus was born under supernatural circumstances, the questions of x and y chromosomes coming from Mary are irrelevant. This occourance happened outside of our understanding of reality. That is why the divine birth is considered to be one of God's miracles. A miracle is an event that seems impossible to explain by natural laws and so is regarded as supernatural in orgin or an act of God. If you don't believe in miracles, you don't believe in God. If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in Jesus. If you don't believe in Jesus...well you have no vested interest in this thread.
If you want me to specify on any of this, please ask.

That's what the Bible says, and what I've always been taught.