She married Joseph and accompanied him to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born.[5] In keeping with Jewish custom, the betrothal would have taken place when she was around 12, and the birth of Jesus about a year later.

surreptitious57 wrote:Do not make the mistake of applying contemporary morals to yesteryear. As a rule of thumb now, the further back one goes in human history, the greater the inhumanity. So while it would be unacceptable for a woman to be expected to give birth at that age now, two thousand years ago was a whole different time. It is rather interesting to look to Islam in this respect also. I do not know how old Mary was in the Koran when she gave birth to Jesus - although he is referenced as speaking in tongues on point of birth - but a girl became a woman after her first period now. This little known fact is something that Islamophobes forget to mention when referencing Mohammad as a paedophile. Nowadays it would be absolutely wrong for one to impregnate a child but as I said one should not apply contemporary morals to yesteryear, for they are not absolute

Alan B wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Do not make the mistake of applying contemporary morals to yesteryear. As a rule of thumb now, the further back one goes in human history, the greater the inhumanity. So while it would be unacceptable for a woman to be expected to give birth at that age now, two thousand years ago was a whole different time. It is rather interesting to look to Islam in this respect also. I do not know how old Mary was in the Koran when she gave birth to Jesus - although he is referenced as speaking in tongues on point of birth - but a girl became a woman after her first period now. This little known fact is something that Islamophobes forget to mention when referencing Mohammad as a paedophile. Nowadays it would be absolutely wrong for one to impregnate a child but as I said one should not apply contemporary morals to yesteryear, for they are not absolute

I agree. But the question was why do modern representations ignore this and are modern worshippers aware ?

chairman bill wrote:How many times do we have theists of one stripe or another, telling us that without their magic man there would be no morals? How many times are we told that morality is objective, determined once & for all by God, and not subject to the changing whims of us mere mortals? So how did this God get it all so wrong?

surreptitious57 wrote:Do not make the mistake of applying contemporary morals to yesteryear. As a rule of thumb now, the further back one goes in human history, the greater the inhumanity. So while it would be unacceptable for a woman to be expected to give birth
at that age now, two thousand years ago was a whole different time. It is rather interesting to look to Islam in this respect also. I do not know how old Mary was in the Koran when she gave birth to Jesus - although he is referenced as speaking in tongues on point of birth - but a girl became a woman after her first period now. This little known fact is something that Islamophobes forget to mention when referencing Mohammad as a paedophile. Nowadays it would be absolutely wrong for one to impregnate a child but as I said one should not apply contemporary morals to yesteryear, for they are not absolute

Mary in Feminist Theology: Mother of God or Domesticated Goddess? | Fr. Manfred Hauke

Print-friendly version

Mary, the virginal mother of God, is a kind of central point at which the main lines of the Catholic Faith come together. Since it is impossible to conceive of sacred history without her, she points in a unique way toward the mystery of Christ and the Church. By virtue of that position, she also becomes a criterion against which new theological conceptions must be measured. Mary's criteriological significance is of supreme value when assessing feminist theology, which puts forward demands for fundamental changes in religious life.

Mary Daly's and other Feminist Critiques of Mariology

The decisive impulse to theological feminism's critique of Mariology came in 1973, from Mary Daly's Beyond God the Father. Already in 1968, Daly published a book on the theme of women, its title and basic content closely tied to Simone de Beauvoir: The Church and the Second Sex. For Daly, too, one does not arrive in the world as a woman, but one becomes a woman. In view of the theory of evolution, we can no longer speak of an "essence" of man or of woman or, likewise, of an immutable God who grounds immutable orders of things. Hence, there are no longer any creation-imposed presuppositions to serve as standards for the transformation of society and the Church, but only the ideal of "equality."

In her 1973 critique, Daly has been inspired once again by Simone de Beauvoir, who had pointed out the contrast between the ancient goddesses and Mary as early as 1949; whereas the goddesses commanded autonomous power and utilized men for their own purposes, Mary is wholly the servant of God: "'I am the handmaid of the Lord.' For the first time in the history of mankind," writes Beauvoir, "a mother kneels before her son and acknowledges, of her own free will, her inferiority. The supreme victory of masculinity is consummated in Mariolatry: it signifies the rehabilitation of woman through the completeness of her defeat."

Daly now sharpens this critique and puts it in a wider systematic context: Mary is "a remnant of the ancient image of the Mother Goddess, enchained and subordinated in Christianity, as the 'Mother of God'." To this attempt to "domesticate" the mother goddess, Daly opposes a striving to bring together the divine and the feminine.
...

surreptitious57 wrote:Do not make the mistake of applying contemporary morals to yesteryear.

surreptitious57 wrote:at that age now, two thousand years ago was a whole different time. It is rather interesting to look to Islam in this respect also. I do not know how old Mary was in the Koran when she gave birth to Jesus - although he is referenced as speaking in tongues on point of birth - but a girl became a woman after her first period now. This little known fact is something that Islamophobes forget to mention when referencing Mohammad as a paedophile. Nowadays it would be absolutely wrong for one to impregnate a child but as I said one should not apply contemporary morals to yesteryear, for they are not absolute

Scot Dutchy wrote:Does it matter how old she was. Did she even exist?

Just a fairy story after all.

Onyx8 wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Do not make the mistake of applying contemporary morals to yesteryear. As a rule of thumb now, the further back one goes in human history, the greater the inhumanity. So while it would be unacceptable for a woman to be expected to give birth at that age now, two thousand years ago was a whole different time. It is rather interesting to look to Islam in this respect also. I do not know how old Mary was in the Koran when she gave birth to Jesus - although he is referenced as speaking in tongues on point of birth - but a girl became a woman after her first period now. This little known fact is something that Islamophobes forget to mention when referencing Mohammad as a paedophile. Nowadays it would be absolutely wrong for one to impregnate a child but as I said one should not apply contemporary morals to yesteryear, for they are not absolute

How about the thighing of Aisha from 6 - 9 years old

HomerJay wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Do not make the mistake of applying contemporary morals to yesteryear

Difficult to see what you mean here

( except as some sort of over emotive censoriousness hallmarked by the Islamophobia reference )

surreptitious57 wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Do not make the mistake of applying contemporary morals to yesteryear. As a rule of thumb now, the further back one goes in human history, the greater the inhumanity. So while it would be unacceptable for a woman to be expected to give birth at that age now, two thousand years ago was a whole different time. It is rather interesting to look to Islam in this respect also. I do not know how old Mary was in the Koran when she gave birth to Jesus - although he is referenced as speaking in tongues on point of birth - but a girl became a woman after her first period now. This little known fact is something that Islamophobes forget to mention when referencing Mohammad as a paedophile. Nowadays it would be absolutely wrong for one to impregnate a child but as I said one should not apply contemporary morals to yesteryear, for they are not absolute

How about the thighing of Aisha from 6 - 9 years old

My understanding is that Mohammad married Aisha when she was six but had to wait three more years - till she was nine - before having sexual intercourse with her. This was perfectly acceptable as that was when she had her first period so she would have legally been a woman from that point on. I also understand that girls matured earlier then so it would not have been unusual to start menstruating at that age. The other interestinhg thing is that she was A Christian when Mohammad married her, and remained one the rest of her life. But nowadays, it is traditional for Muslims only to marry Muslims, as bringing up children is less complicated and guarantees a future generation raised in the faith

Onyx8 wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Do not make the mistake of applying contemporary morals to yesteryear. As a rule of thumb now, the further back one goes in human history, the greater the inhumanity. So while it would be unacceptable for a woman to be expected to give birth at that age now, two thousand years ago was a whole different time. It is rather interesting to look to Islam in this respect also. I do not know how old Mary was in the Koran when she gave birth to Jesus - although he is referenced as speaking in tongues on point of birth - but a girl became a woman after her first period now. This little known fact is something that Islamophobes forget to mention when referencing Mohammad as a paedophile. Nowadays it would be absolutely wrong for one to impregnate a child but as I said one should not apply contemporary morals to yesteryear, for they are not absolute

How about the thighing of Aisha from 6 - 9 years old

My understanding is that Mohammad married Aisha when she was six but had to wait three more years - till she was nine - before having sexual intercourse with her. This was perfectly acceptable as that was when she had her first period so she would have legally been a woman from that point on. I also understand that girls matured earlier then so it would not have been unusual to start menstruating at that age. The other interesting thing is that she was A Christian when Mohammad married her, and remained one the rest of her life. But nowadays, it is traditional for Muslims only to marry Muslims, as bringing up children is less complicated and guarantees a future generation raised in the faith

. . . and the thighing