Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: Nightingale ( )
Date: November 10, 2017 12:35PM

Re the furor over Roy Moore and the allegations of sexual abuse against him.

I heard a journalist this morning say that the defence of some of Moore's supporters that Joseph and Mary had a baby when Mary was very young (12-14?) is "scripturally incorrect". Good point, I thought.

According to the Bible (which many of Moore's defenders uphold) at Matthew 1:18, Mary was "pregnant with the Holy Spirit" (NIV). Mary is feted as being a virgin at the time. Therefore, in Christian belief, Joseph was not the literal father of the baby. So, Joseph and Mary were expecting but had not had sexual relations. First came Mary's virginity, then the Holy Spirit, then marriage of Joseph and Mary. This is not them having a baby in the accepted sense.

And I would guess that a young virgin who had just given birth was not in a hurry to consummate her marriage. So a significant amount of time had to pass before they ever got together. (According to the information used to calculate these things, Mary would still have been very young but maybe the much lower life expectancy and/or usual custom at the time would cover that point?).

Whether you believe in the Bible account or not (and many here do not,as we know) I think that the conception via Holy Spirit is a good scriptural point, using their own belief system, to counter those arguing (pitifully) that somehow The Virgin Birth is a defence against, or equates to, adult men involved in predatory/abusive behaviour towards a much younger person.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2017 12:59PM by Nightingale.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Nightingale ( )
Date: November 10, 2017 12:58PM

Quoting Bible scripture in defence of criminal behaviour to a world that contains countless non-Christians doesn't fly. In fact, it seems and sounds strange.

It's like me breaking into Balmoral Castle (Scotland) and eating QEII's porridge because "Goldilocks did it!"

I would be confined to some type of institution for a good while, likely. And wouldn't it just sound and be a very strange defence for the crime of breaking and entering, theft (of oats), and disturbing the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, [many other countries], Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: relievedtolearn ( )
Date: November 10, 2017 01:04PM

THANK YOU!!!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********   **        ********   ********   **    ** 
 **     **  **        **     **  **     **   **  **  
 **     **  **        **     **  **     **    ****   
 ********   **        ********   ********      **    
 **         **        **         **     **     **    
 **         **        **         **     **     **    
 **         ********  **         ********      **