Pope Endorses Same-Sex Civil Unions

[Walt Zingmatilder]

will,

First, the annunciation story isn't a fact.

.Where are you getting this from and whereever it is is it the earliest extant copy?

Third, if the annunciation is the "announcement by the Archangel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she would conceive and become the mother of Jesus, the Jewish messiah and Son of God" in what sense was that consensual? Did your man Gabriel also add some small print: "Customer is free to reject this offer within 14 days. God's impregnating activities are governed by the Virgin Impregnation Regulation Authority. Terms & Conditions apply" type of thing?

From the Catholic Exchange.com
''According to the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium , “The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman (Eve) had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.” St. Irenaeus, one of the early Church Fathers, stated, “Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.''

and Luke.

And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God." And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

[Roses]

One should take most things the Vatican has to say with a huge pinch of salt.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One should take most things the Vatican has to say with a huge pinch of salt.

Mary's words Let it Be are from the New Testament.

I have a standing order for a delivery of Salt from the mines in Cheshire for the purposes of taking part on this Board. The County highways department have asked to buy off any leftover from replying to posts but I have told them that a surplus is highly unlikely.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Where are you getting this from and whereever it is is it the earliest extant copy?

To be called a fact legitimately stories have to satisfy certain epistemological principles. The annunciation story doesn't do that. 

From the Catholic Exchange.com
''According to the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium , “The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman (Eve) had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.” St. Irenaeus, one of the early Church Fathers, stated, “Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.''

First, is this claim of prior assent in the "holy" texts or is is it just a handy post rationalisation the Vatican decided to add to get them out of the consent problem?

Second, people who are "obedient" obey something - in what sense would that have been a free choice? "So here's the deal Mary: an all wise, all powerful, ever present god who created the universe wants you to have his baby. No pressure though. How does that sound to you?..." Sounds a bit like the kind of "offer" the Mafia would make don't you think: "So Fat Tony would consider it a great personal favour if you agreed to his offer to stash the gun and the loot. How does that sound to you? By the way, how's your Mother? Keeping well is she?"...           

[Roses]

Mary's words Let it Be are from the New Testament.

I have a standing order for a delivery of Salt from the mines in Cheshire for the purposes of taking part on this Board. The County highways department have asked to buy off any leftover from replying to posts but I have told them that a surplus is highly unlikely.

The Bible cannot be relied upon where credibility is concerned.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

To be called a fact legitimately stories have to satisfy certain epistemological principles. The annunciation story doesn't do that. 

First, is this claim of prior assent in the "holy" texts or is is it just a handy post rationalisation the Vatican decided to add to get them out of the consent problem?

Second, people who are "obedient" obey something - in what sense would that have been a free choice? "So here's the deal Mary: an all wise, all powerful, ever present god who created the universe wants you to have his baby. How does that sound to you?. No pressure though..." Sounds a bit like the kind of "offer" the Mafia would make don't you think: "So Fat Tony would consider it a great personal favour if you agreed to his offer to stashing the gun and the loot. How does that sound to you? By the way, how's your Mother? Keeping well is she?"...           

Oh yes I knew you would question obedience and then as justification inject your own brand of fantasy theology, the God is like a mafia boss. Shear hysterical bollocks. Are you hoping by it to get the more exciteable bouncing up and down?

What was it it then Hillside? Obedience or determined to?

 
 

[Roses]

Oh yes I knew you would question obedience and then as justification inject your own brand of fantasy theology, the God is like a mafia boss. Shear hysterical bollocks. Are you hoping by it to get the more exciteable bouncing up and down?

What was it it then Hillside? Obedience or determined to?

Poor Vlad, I suggest you take a lot more water with whatever you have been imbibing, it is you who sounds hysterical.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh yes I knew you would question obedience…

Your stock-in-trade evasion is noted. People who are “obedient” obey something. Why is this truism difficult for you to comprehend?

…and then as justification inject your own brand of fantasy theology, the God is like a mafia boss. Shear hysterical bollocks. Are you hoping by it to get the more exciteable bouncing up and down?

I was merely explaining to you by an analogy (forgetting that the concept of the analogy has always been beyond you) that some “offers” come loaded with consequences. You’re right though – it’s not an exact fit: you can escape the Mafia by dying. Your god on the other hand…
 

What was it it then Hillside? Obedience or determined to?

Do you want to have a go at turning that "thought" into something coherent?

[Roses]

Vlad,

Your stock-in-trade evasion is noted. People who are “obedient” obey something. Why is this truism difficult for you to comprehend?

I was merely explaining to you by an analogy (forgetting that the concept of the analogy has always been beyond you) that some “offers” come loaded with consequences. You’re right though – it’s not an exact fit: you can escape the Mafia by dying. Your god on the other hand…
 
Do you want to have a go at turning that "thought" into something coherent?

You'll be lucky!

[SteveH]

will,

First, the annunciation story isn't a fact.

You were the one saying the virgin birth was God raping Mary! How come that's a fact, and not the annunciation? The point is that Mary consented.

Second, how in any case would that get you off the hook of James being a half-brother rather than a full brother? Was Jesus the "son of god" but James the son of a different father, or not?

Of course, if you accept the Biblical account (which you seem to do when it suits you, but not when it doesn't), James was a half-brother.

Third, if the annunciation is the "announcement by the Archangel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she would conceive and become the mother of Jesus, the Jewish messiah and Son of God" in what sense was that consensual? Did your man Gabriel also add some small print: "Customer is free to reject this offer within 14 days. God's impregnating activities are governed by the Virgin Impregnation Regulation Authority. Terms & Conditions apply" type of thing?

The clue here is that Gabriel announced it (supposedly) - he didn't ask her whether she'd like to accept the offer.
 

The point of the Magnificat is that it is Mary's hymn of praise to God for choosing her to give birth to the Messiah. That implies consent.

[ProfessorDavey]

The point is that Mary consented.

On the basis of what we have of the story in the bible, she most definitely did not consent, or at least did not in the context of the elements we would require for consent to be valid in legal terms.

One of the key elements is that consent must be completely voluntary and not coerced in any way. Anyone who knows anything of the matter (and I do as I teach the topic to masters level students) will know that power relationships need to be carefully considered. This is where there is an imbalance of power between the person asking for something and the person 'consenting' - where this exists even if the person agreed to the thing being asked of them there is no valid consent as the person may not feel they could refuse due to an imbalance of power.

If you believe god exists then god asking someone to do something has to be the greatest power relationship going and realistically someone believing in god and with an angel in front of them asking them to do something for god will be in no position to refuse. Therefore there is no voluntariness and therefore no valid consent.

But of course this is all meaningless conjecture as there is no credible evidence that the events reported in Luke chapter 1 actually happened.

[bluehillside Retd.]

will,

You were the one saying the virgin birth was God raping Mary! How come that's a fact, and not the annunciation?

Wow. OK, first principles: when I say, “this story would mean that…” etc I’m not saying that I also think the story to be true. It just means that a story you think to be true carries with it certain (unpleasant) implications. When NS tells Spud he worships a thuggish god do you think that means that NS has suddenly become a theist, or just that he’s reasoned his way to what Spud’s god narrative implies? 

The point is that Mary consented.

Hardly – see later on though.

Of course, if you accept the Biblical account (which you seem to do when it suits you, but not when it doesn't), James was a half-brother.

I do no such thing, and yes that would make James a half-brother rather than a brother as you previously said. 

The point of the Magnificat is that it is Mary's hymn of praise to God for choosing her to give birth to the Messiah. That implies consent.

Would you say that the “hymns of praise” the people of North Korea offer up to Kim Jong-un imply their consent? Why not?

The point here is the power dynamic – an all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present, universe-creating god making an “offer” to a teenage Jewish girl is not an unfettered choice. It’s just Fat Tony asking you to hide the loot while solicitously asking whether your Mum’s keeping well.   

Short version: you have an idiosyncratic understanding of the meaning of “consent”.

[Roses]

If the less than credible story of Jesus being god's son is true, it doesn't say much about that entity's morality getting a girl in the family way when she was betrothed to a man. I reckon, as I have said many times previously, the Virgin Mary myth was invented to cover the embarrassment of Mary being up the duff prior to her marriage to Joseph.

[Aruntraveller]

News just in.

The gays aren't blessing the Vatican on account of all the ostentatious gown wearing by men, and far too much kissing of rings going on.

Gay people cannot condone such sinful behaviour.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the basis of what we have of the story in the bible, she most definitely did not consent, or at least did not in the context of the elements we would require for consent to be valid in legal terms.

One of the key elements is that consent must be completely voluntary and not coerced in any way. Anyone who knows anything of the matter (and I do as I teach the topic to masters level students) will know that power relationships need to be carefully considered. This is where there is an imbalance of power between the person asking for something and the person 'consenting' - where this exists even if the person agreed to the thing being asked of them there is no valid consent as the person may not feel they could refuse due to an imbalance of power.

If you believe god exists then god asking someone to do something has to be the greatest power relationship going and realistically someone believing in god and with an angel in front of them asking them to do something for god will be in no position to refuse. Therefore there is no voluntariness and therefore no valid consent.

But of course this is all meaningless conjecture as there is no credible evidence that the events reported in Luke chapter 1 actually happened.

Every now and then God or the Bible is taken to court, we here about it and then we all go quiet.

I'd like to see how you think the courts would treat a virgin birth. Would it for instance be categorised as an act of God?

Would the archangel and Mary be called as witnesses. Would Tacitus give expert unbiased historic testimony.

As for unbalance of power, there are any number of instances of disobeying God with no absolute consequences. The trouble comes when it is a symptom of one's alienation from God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the less than credible story of Jesus being god's son is true, it doesn't say much about that entity's morality getting a girl in the family way when she was betrothed to a man. I reckon, as I have said many times previously, the Virgin Mary myth was invented to cover the embarrassment of Mary being up the duff prior to her marriage to Joseph.

And when Mrs Dawkins was expecting the Blessed Richard was she ''up the Duff'' too?

[Roses]

And when Mrs Dawkins was expecting the Blessed Richard was she ''up the Duff'' too?

I suggest you sleep it off before you post on this forum. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Every now and then God or the Bible is taken to court, we here about it and then we all go quiet.

I'd like to see how you think the courts would treat a virgin birth. Would it for instance be categorised as an act of God?

Would the archangel and Mary be called as witnesses. Would Tacitus give expert unbiased historic testimony.

Irrelevant rambling. A court wouldn’t “treat a virgin birth” – it would examine the quality of the evidence attempted to justify that claim.

As for unbalance of power, there are any number of instances of disobeying God with no absolute consequences. The trouble comes when it is a symptom of one's alienation from God.

And Fat Tony sometimes didn’t go after the people who disobeyed him either. That’s not the point though is it.