Religions have succeeded

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really. I seem to have hit a nerve judging by your posts.If Mary was pregnant, she must first have got pregnant. How are you going to explain that. Not that it matters, the point is that she was made pregnant by God and had to carry his baby with all the risks and and problems any woman would have had at that time, especially when getting pregnant out of wedlock.Why should God get a free pass to treat women badly just because he is a god?You are the one claiming it wasn't normal sex, not me.

She was pregnant with jesus conceived by the Holy spirit....again, how is that sex or artificial insemination? Stop trying to shift the burden of proof from your positive assertion that it is sex or artificial insemination.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You've taught me enough Hillside to know that you need to justify your recent accusation. Justify or retract.

Then prepare to keep learning…

I’ve always been rather fond of the Greek myths – the myth of Prometheus and the Theft of Fire for example:

“One day, Zeus distributed gifts to all the gods, but he didn't care much for humans. The Titan Prometheus, however, because he loved and felt sorry for humans, climbed up on Olympus and stole the fire from Hephaestus' workshop, put it in a hollow reed and gifted it to the humans. This way, humans could create fire, warm up and make tools. Zeus became very angry when he heard about this. He took Prometheus to a high mountain, the Caucasus, and chained him on a rock with thick chains made by the smith god, Hephaestus. And every day, Zeus would send an eagle that ate Prometheus’ liver. For thirty years Prometheus remained bound in the Caucasus, until the great hero Hercules, Zeus’ demigod son, released him finally from his torment.”

Cracking story right? You’ll notice though that I (and to my knowledge every other person who cites it) call it a myth. Do you think all of us have a burden of proof too to justify using that term therefore, or are you special pleading for it for the Christian “God impregnated Mary” story just because you happen to be personally invested in that myth?

"Myth" is one term used for stories that fail the tests of historicity ("legend", "fable" etc are others). Try to remember that for future reference.

You're welcome.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

She was pregnant with jesus conceived by the Holy spirit....again, how is that sex or artificial insemination? Stop trying to shift the burden of proof from your positive assertion that it is sex or artificial insemination.

It's non-consensual impregnation of a minor, whatever the method (about which the myth is understandably coy). You might think non-consensual impregnation of a minor is morally good; I don't. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then prepare to keep learning…
 

Not from you, you are a shit teacher.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It's non-consensual impregnation of a minor, whatever the method (about which the myth is understandably coy). You might think non-consensual impregnation of a minor is morally good; I don't.

Just repeating the accusation doesn't justify it. What about the other accusations?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not from you, you are a shit teacher.

Given how little you've learned, perhaps you're right. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just repeating the accusation doesn't justify it. What about the other accusations?

What accusation? Does the Christian story of the conception of Christ entail the non-consensual impregnation of a minor by a god or not?

It's a simple enough question isn't it?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What accusation? Does the Christian story of the conception of Christ entail the non-consensual impregnation of a minor by a god or not?

It's a simple enough question isn't it?   

You have to prove it since you are asserting it. Other than that I have better things to do than waste my time with your manchild behaviour.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You have to prove it since you are asserting it. Other than that I have better things to do than waste my time with your manchild behaviour.

A certain irony there from someone spitting the dummy because he can’t rebut an argument, but in any case – prove what? That the story says what I say it says? Fair enough:

Matthew 1:18-25
 
"Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit…"

Luke 1:26-38
 
"In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."

But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.

The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus.

He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David.

He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

The angel said to 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 holy; he will be called Son of God."

Not sure why I have to look this stuff up for you (it's your myth after all, not mine), but in any case you’ll notice no doubt that in the story Mary (who was perhaps thirteen or fourteen at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary) wasn’t asked whether she was up for it – she was told it had happened/would happen regardless. That sounds like the non-consensual impregnation of a minor to me – doesn’t it to you?   

So is that really morally fine in your opinion?

Really though? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A certain irony there from someone spitting the dummy because he can’t rebut an argument, but in any case – prove what? That the story says what I say it says? Fair enough:

Matthew 1:18-25
 
"Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit…"

Luke 1:26-38
 
"In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.

And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."

But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.

The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus.

He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David.

He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

The angel said to 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 holy; he will be called Son of God."

Not sure why I have to look this stuff up for you (it's your myth after all, not mine), but in any case you’ll notice no doubt that in the story Mary (who was perhaps thirteen or fourteen at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary) wasn’t asked whether she was up for it – she was told it had happened/would happen regardless. That sounds like the non-consensual impregnation of a minor to me – doesn’t it to you?   

So is that really morally fine in your opinion?

Really though?

If you are going to quote Luke1:26-38 QUOTE ALL OF IT AND DON'T EDIT OUT THE BIT THAT DESTROYS YOUR CASE
Let me include that bit here.

 verse 38 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.” “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

Since the conception by the holy spirit is subsequent to this Mary has given consent in the very passage you missed out.

I find nothing else here that supports your accusation and you have been shown to be a suppressor of evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you are going to quote Luke1:26-38 QUOTE ALL OF IT AND DON'T EDIT OUT THE BIT THAT DESTROYS YOUR CASE
Let me include that bit here.

 verse 38 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.” “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

Since the conception by the holy spirit is subsequent to this Mary has given consent in the very passage you missed out.

I find nothing else here that supports your accusation and you have been shown to be a suppressor of evidence.

Vlad - you do understand that consent must be voluntary. If there is pressure or coercion or a 'power relationship' that makes an individual feel obliged to agree or that they have no choice then there is no consent.

There is one hell of a power relationship going on here, and that Mary considers herself to be god's 'servant' clearly indicates that she felt that she had no alternative but to agree. Under those circumstances there is no consent.

At best Mary acquiesces to the arrangement, but that is a world away from consent.

And of course the earlier passage makes it clear what will happen to Mary - there is no indication that Mary has any choice in the matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad - you do understand that consent must be voluntary.

And it is in verse 38 Mary has made a spiritual commitment to serve God. We know that to be a prior commitment to consent to work with God. As for

'' pressure or coercion or a 'power relationship' that makes an individual feel obliged to agree or that they have no choice then there is no consent.''

well, if you are asserting that, you need to prove it, bearing in mind Hillside suppressed the evidence against his case.

There is one hell of a power relationship going on here,

But a consentual one

and that Mary considers herself to be god's 'servant' clearly indicates that she felt that she had no alternative but to agree.

Again you must make a case.

There would have been people who had chosen not to be God's servant and we have no record of them being approached only a record of someone committed to God and she has in verse 38 agreed to be part of God's mission. There is no consequent record of Mary making a complaint to the authorities of coercion.

I think you are still labouring under a compulsion to treat God like a powerful man with all man's vices and lusts and the conception of Jesus to be sex or some kind of insemination which this isn't.

I think this is also a case of specially taking the bible seriously where you think there is a loophole and coming up with excuses for where you cannot see an opportunity for one.

[jeremyp]

If you are going to quote Luke1:26-38 QUOTE ALL OF IT AND DON'T EDIT OUT THE BIT THAT DESTROYS YOUR CASE
Let me include that bit here.

 verse 38 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.” “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

Since the conception by the holy spirit is subsequent to this Mary has given consent in the very passage you missed out.

I find nothing else here that supports your accusation and you have been shown to be a suppressor of evidence.

God and a carpenter's fiancée. That's a really unhealthy power dynamic in that relationship. It puts Ross Geller's relationship with Elizabeth Stevens into perspective.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God and a carpenter's fiancée. That's a really unhealthy power dynamic in that relationship. It puts Ross Geller's relationship with Elizabeth Stevens into perspective.

An example of an unhealthy power dynamic is Hillside and his wee wizards who he continually bamboozles. Today though, he has been roundly exposed....and with that bit of triumphalism, i'mmmmmmoutofhere!

[jeremyp]

An example of an unhealthy power dynamic is Hillside and his wee wizards who he continually bamboozles. Today though, he has been roundly exposed....and with that bit of triumphalism, i'mmmmmmoutofhere!

I think you'd do better to come up with some arguments for your point of view rather than harping on about other posters.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you are going to quote Luke1:26-38 QUOTE ALL OF IT AND DON'T EDIT OUT THE BIT THAT DESTROYS YOUR CASE
Let me include that bit here.

 verse 38 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.” “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

Since the conception by the holy spirit is subsequent to this Mary has given consent in the very passage you missed out.

I find nothing else here that supports your accusation and you have been shown to be a suppressor of evidence.

Actually I just googled “conception of Jesus” and copied and pasted from a US (I assume from the spelling) website. Anyway, let’s see whether you’ve “DESTROYED MY CASE” shall we?

First Matthew makes no reference to consent: “…an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit…” is in the past tense. Mary had already been impregnated before an “Angel of the Lord” (fuck me, do people really take this stuff seriously?) decided to tell Joseph about it. What’s your thinking here – that when an angel also showed up beforehand to ask Mary whether it was ok for God to knock her up, she agreed but then forgot to tell Joseph about it? 

Second, as to Luke here’s 29 – 35 inclusive:

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.

30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God.

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

32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called b the Son of God.

So, so far this angel is telling her what is going to happen – not asking whether it would be ok if it did happen. 

And then after all that here’s 36 – 38:
 
36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month.

37 For no word from God will ever fail.”

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

So, according to the myth, a perhaps 13-14-year-old is told by an “Angel of the Lord” that she will will “conceive and give birth to a son”, she’s told what to call him (“…you are to call him Jesus…”) and she’s told that Jesus will be the “Son of God”. She’s not though apparently told that she has the option to say no if she doesn’t fancy it.

And when Mary acquiesces that’s your idea of "consent" is it? Seriously? Not even close – acquiescence by a servant to the envoy of a universe-creating god is one thing, but consent in any meaningful sense would require the freedom and capacity to make a choice unencumbered by an epically asymmetric power dynamic.

If an "Angel of the Lord" knocked on your door and told you “Almighty God” wanted you to sell your house to him for £10 and you did it, would you have given your consent or just rolled over in your view?         

PS As you’ve just run away from your earlier set of errors re burden of proof, can I assume you’ve “consented” to being wrong about that (again)?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think your argument is a version of the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument. The problem with that argument is that guns make it a lot easier to kill people.

Similarly, people might be homophobic without religion, but a religion that tells you homosexuality is a sin makes it a lot easier to justify your homophobia to yourself and others and makes it easier to go out and be cruel to gay people.

I think that only works if religions can exist without people. Guns can exist even if all the people in the world die. Religions can't.

Also, religions are not telling people anything - it requires people  to interpret and communicate religious ideas on a constant basis. Without that constant interpretation and communication mechanism of ideas by people, religions will have no effect on individuals and therefore on society.

As NS says people communicate ideas during their interactions with other people e.g. that homosexuality is a sin. They could have said "nice weather we're having today or 'let's feed those poor hungry refugees and welcome them into the country' but some people when they talk to other people choose to say "homosexuality is a sin" instead. And other people choose to believe them. Nothing forces people to believe someone who says "God says XYZ is a sin". If they believe in a God and believe that God said it is a sin, it is because something in them has a desire to believe in a God who thinks that way and because they agree with the idea that homosexuality is a sin - it seems to appeal to their nature in some way to believe it.

Or they might choose to come up with ideas to convince themselves that God does not think it is a sin or that God is forgiving of all sins or some such thing, because it appeals to their nature to be nice to people regardless of the person's sexuality. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Really - I was at a school christmas concert a couple of nights ago that included the standard bible readings used for that purpose, which includes the start of Genesis which included the following words (note girls and boys were present):

'Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

And this is the very starting point of three of the major religions in the world today - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

When you say the above quote is the starting point of Islam - what are you basing that on? What do you mean by "starting point"?

[ProfessorDavey]

And it is in verse 38 Mary has made a spiritual commitment to serve God. We know that to be a prior commitment to consent to work with God.

So what - a prior consent to one things does not and cannot imply consent to something different at a later point. So the consent of a woman to marry a man cannot be seen as consent to have sex with that man whenever the man wishes, regardless of whether the woman also wishes to. Or vice versa.

We need to focus on whether there is firstly any evidence to suggest that Mary actually had a choice - in other words whether she was being asked whether she wanted a particular thing to happen to her or whether she was being told that a particular thing was going to happen to her. And it is pretty clear that we are dealing with the latter, hence the 'will' in:

'You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.'

If there is no actual choice Mary's opinion becomes in effect irrelevant as there can be no consent as consent implies a genuine ability of the individual to choose between outcomes.

But nonetheless let's actually look at the so-called 'consent' - this is nothing of the sort. There is no evidence that Mary was able to make a genuinely voluntary decision as she has described herself as a servant. Being in servitude is, by definition, a situation in which you must acquiesce to the view of another more powerful person or entity regardless of your own view. If you are in servitude you, definitionally, cannot give consent.

There is also the rather inconvenient issue of Mary's age - if the general view is accepted that she was very young then she probably lacked the capacity to consent.

[Sriram]

It is silly to go on and on about God taking Mary's consent. Whether you believe in him or not...God is God. He didn't take any ones consent before creating the world or creating individuals. Did Mary (or anyone else) give consent to be born (and as male or female)? 

[ProfessorDavey]

It is silly to go on and on about God taking Mary's consent.

Actually it is all just a story - there is no a shred of credible evidence that it actually happened.

Whether you believe in him or not...God is God.

What a non-sense statement - the whole point about atheism is that you don't believe that god exists and therefore god isn't god but something that doesn't exist.

He didn't take any ones consent before creating the world or creating individuals. Did Mary (or anyone else) give consent to be born (and as male or female)? 

Not really relevant - we typically accept the notion of consent being important in terms of autonomous decision making by those who have the capacity to make such decisions - hence your comment about choosing to be born has no relevance. But it is perfectly reasonable to ask the hypothetical question that were we to believe what is written in that text to be what happened (it didn't - see above) then would Mary have given consent. And the answer to that hypothetical question is clearly, no she didn't give consent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Actually I just googled “conception of Jesus” and copied and pasted from a US (I assume from the spelling) website. Anyway, let’s see whether you’ve “DESTROYED MY CASE” shall we?

First Matthew makes no reference to consent: “…an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit…” is in the past tense. Mary had already been impregnated before an “Angel of the Lord” (fuck me, do people really take this stuff seriously?) decided to tell Joseph about it. What’s your thinking here – that when an angel also showed up beforehand to ask Mary whether it was ok for God to knock her up, she agreed but then forgot to tell Joseph about it? 

Second, as to Luke here’s 29 – 35 inclusive:

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.

30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God.

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

32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called b the Son of God.

So, so far this angel is telling her what is going to happen – not asking whether it would be ok if it did happen. 

And then after all that here’s 36 – 38:
 
36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month.

37 For no word from God will ever fail.”

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.

So, according to the myth, a perhaps 13-14-year-old is told by an “Angel of the Lord” that she will will “conceive and give birth to a son”, she’s told what to call him (“…you are to call him Jesus…”) and she’s told that Jesus will be the “Son of God”. She’s not though apparently told that she has the option to say no if she doesn’t fancy it.

And when Mary acquiesces that’s your idea of "consent" is it? Seriously? Not even close – acquiescence by a servant to the envoy of a universe-creating god is one thing, but consent in any meaningful sense would require the freedom and capacity to make a choice unencumbered by an epically asymmetric power dynamic.

If an "Angel of the Lord" knocked on your door and told you “Almighty God” wanted you to sell your house to him for £10 and you did it, would you have given your consent or just rolled over in your view?         

PS As you’ve just run away from your earlier set of errors re burden of proof, can I assume you’ve “consented” to being wrong about that (again)?

I'm sorry but my reading is out of the New testament where as you are reading things in and editing out. What we get from verse 38 is someone who is a committed follower of God who here in the magnificat later shows she is conversant with God's plan, consents to it in her Let it Be and someone who is fully aware of the personal, theological and global implications of what she is welcoming. This is a switched on person of spiritual ,intellectual and personal  maturity. We know that people at this level of access to God's mission can and do deviate from God's plan vis Jonah, but there is none of that from Mary who faces her mission with enthusiasm.

Abusive power relationships, minority, zero consent, victimhood are all themes you are reading in.

Of course this argument you make is not an atheistic argument but an antitheistic one. I see in your posts evidence of you having to remind yourself at intervals that you are in fact an atheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what - a prior consent to one things does not and cannot imply consent to something different at a later point. So the consent of a woman to marry a man cannot be seen as consent to have sex with that man whenever the man wishes, regardless of whether the woman also wishes to. Or vice versa.

We need to focus on whether there is firstly any evidence to suggest that Mary actually had a choice - in other words whether she was being asked whether she wanted a particular thing to happen to her or whether she was being told that a particular thing was going to happen to her. And it is pretty clear that we are dealing with the latter, hence the 'will' in:

'You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.'

If there is no actual choice Mary's opinion becomes in effect irrelevant as there can be no consent as consent implies a genuine ability of the individual to choose between outcomes.

But nonetheless let's actually look at the so-called 'consent' - this is nothing of the sort. There is no evidence that Mary was able to make a genuinely voluntary decision as she has described herself as a servant. Being in servitude is, by definition, a situation in which you must acquiesce to the view of another more powerful person or entity regardless of your own view. If you are in servitude you, definitionally, cannot give consent.

There is also the rather inconvenient issue of Mary's age - if the general view is accepted that she was very young then she probably lacked the capacity to consent.

The only documentation we have on this is the New Testament. Anything you bring in is by definition speculation with antitheist prejudice evident in it's attempt to bring humanist points of view into an incident of divinity. i.e. You want a richly and sweetly confected antitheistic argument but you want an atheistic argument as well. Poor fit, i'm afraid. See my answer to Bluehillside.

[Outrider]

She was pregnant with jesus conceived by the Holy spirit....again, how is that sex or artificial insemination? Stop trying to shift the burden of proof from your positive assertion that it is sex or artificial insemination.

Either you're maintaining the traditional view that Mary was a virgin at the time, in which case however it was achieved this was not a natural conception and is therefore artificial - supernatural, in this instance, rather than achieved by science. Or, you think that the virgin nonsense is just that, nonsense, in which case the Holy Spirit just indulged in extra-marital sex - now my understanding is that that's not technically forbidden in the Old Testament, but it does fly against the teachings of the sequel (or, at the very least, most of the adherents of the sequel).

If you think it's somehow neither natural insemination (i.e. sexual intercourse) or artificial insemination (i.e. not sexual intercourse) then I'm intrigued to know what the other options might be?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sorry but my reading is out of the New testament where as you are reading things in and editing out.

Actually it was you who started the selective quoting back in reply 96 where you selectively only include 'let it be', rather than the actual full quote which is:

'Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.'

If you are in servitude to someone who has power over you and to whom you are obliged to acquiesce, you cannot consent as 'voluntariness' element which is required for consent is not present.