Look I know when critics of Christianity say “God impregnated a woman without her consent” Christians like to act like this is some outrageous misreading of the text by people who’ve never actually read the Bible but I don’t understand what Christians don’t understand about this criticism

It is literally, straightfowardly right there in the text that God did not ascertain Mary’s consent before telling her that she would conceive his son

You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.
– Luke 1:31

Bolding mine. At NO point before this was Mary asked if she agreed to carry God’s son. All the angel said is you WILL conceive and give birth to a son. Not “Will you conceive?” – just “You WILL conceive.”

It is only AFTER the angel says this that Mary says:

“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.”
– Luke 1:38

Mary may have agreed or acquiesced, but this is NOT consent under any modern understanding of the word. If I drug you and perform a surgery on you without asking, the fact that you were okay with it afterwards does NOT mean that you consented to it.

This is why critics say that God impregnated a woman without her consent. So I hope you will see that this criticism is not misinformed.

Now, there are many, many Christian responses to this, including that God knew beforehand that Mary would be okay with it – sure, whatever, but your response should begin here, with the understanding that in a completely straightforward reading of the text, Mary did not consent, not that critics are baselessly making this up.

It took me a few minutes to get my thoughts straight about why this is so backwards, but I think I have it now. Let’s strip away the pregnancy and the God parts, and consider the following exchange:

Chad: Baby, I know we just met, but we are gonna make hot love tonight.
Stacy: Heck yes we are.
(exeunt ad dormitorem)

Does anyone in their right mind imagine that a violation of consent has somehow happened here? Or does not the very suggestion seem absurd? Yet it’s right there: Chad has made a future affirmative statement without asking any consent of Stacy at all. As of the first sentence in the dialogue, following the logic given above, Chad is a rapist-to-be.

Yet this is precisely the same as the situation you have above. The only way that you can read non-consent into this is if you read the angel’s use of the future tense as somehow excluding the possibility of denial (even though this is not a normal reading of the future tense).

Also God is literally omniscient. I feel like he probably knows how to pick a woman who’s into this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s