Religions have succeeded

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It isn't a non-sense argument at all.

Firstly let's recognise that it is Vlad claiming that the NT account provided evidence for consent - not 1stC consent, but consent. That is why we are discussing it - specifically whether the text in the NT is sufficient to support Vlad's claim that she gave consent - it clearly isn't and the 'power relationship' and servitude elements are red flags that indicate there was no consent (not of course that there is any evidence that what is claimed actually happened).

But actually I don't there has been any meaningful change in what we consider to be consent over the centuries. It is, and always has been a decision made by someone who has the capacity to consent, with knowledge of what that decision is and made voluntarily.

The issue isn't that consent was different centuries ago, but that we had a different view on the importance of consent. The historical shift is that in many cases we used not to give a damn about whether someone consented to a whole range on things, but now we do. We have moved from a position where it was common for decisions to be made on behalf of people (i.e. without consent) to ones where we expect the decision to be taken by the person themselves (i.e. with consent). But the notion of what consent is, is largely unchanged.

So had Vlad claimed that it was all OK because in the 1stC people were pretty relaxed about whether a woman consented to sex or not so why is the NT text any different, then perhaps he'd have a point. But that isn't his claim - his claim is that the NT text is sufficient to conclude that Mary consented - it isn't.

It quite clearly is a nonsense argument. This is a Biblical story not a witness deposition. The story is presented in a way to convey an idea as most stories are. In this case it is presented to show Mary's religious devotion and the supernatural origins of Jesus. The whole point of being religiously devoted is to use the metaphor of being a servant of a higher power to demonstrate your belief, loyalty, steadfastness, constancy, faithfulness etc because you believe the power is a force for good and is just and merciful etc etc   

Of course you can be devoted to other things without seeing yourself as being a servant, but religious devotion uses that metaphor to show that your devotion is to something you consider to be higher than yourself.

The NT text is not going to be sufficient to show evidence of a crime being committed or for the defence of a crime, given the NT text is presenting a story not being used as evidence for legal proceedings.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

No you wouldn’t, but no problem in any case. Just change the thought experiment to 100 children on 100 islands with bibles, and a different 100 on other islands with no bibles. Come back in a bit and compare the morality of the two groups. You might also put two control groups on different islands, some with Beethoven recordings and some without and compare the results re music appreciation later on. 

The point here is that you (presumably) accept that parts of culture like art and music and literature can through their artefacts affect people without human intervention, but you exclude the part of culture that is religion doing the same thing with its artefacts (the Bible for example). I just wondered why.       

No I don't accept that because as soon as you have people, there is human intervention, because the human brain is interpreting information and the brain does not interpret information in a vacuum but in the context of its nurture/nature  - it interprets words and forms moral thoughts and ideas and values based on prior information already stored in the brain from genetic and various environmental sources including cultural sources, separate and independent from the words in the Bible.

[ProfessorDavey]

It quite clearly is a nonsense argument.

No it isn't - see below.

This is a Biblical story not a witness deposition.

Of course, but the argument is to challenge Vlad's view that the story, as written, is sufficient to indicate that Mary consented. I'm not arguing about whether was is written actually happened, but if it happened as described whether there would be evidence for consent. There isn't and strong evidence against consent on the basis of lack of voluntariness.

The story is presented in a way to convey an idea as most stories are. In this case it is presented to show Mary's religious devotion and the supernatural origins of Jesus. The whole point of being religiously devoted is to use the metaphor of being a servant of a higher power to demonstrate your belief, loyalty, steadfastness, constancy, faithfulness etc because you believe the power is a force for good and is just and merciful etc etc

I don't disagree - but that isn't the issue - Vlad thinks the story provides evidence of consent - that is non-sense to anyone who has any understanding of what consent is, and indeed what consent was considered to be in the 1stC, which is pretty well identical to how we see it now. Indeed Plato and Aristotle wrote on consent in a manner that is completely recognisible today and the Roman's embedded the same concepts into their laws. The notion of what consent is hasn't really changed over millennia - what has changed is when and where we consider it to be important.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

It means neither actually. Informed consent is a legal term that means a person voluntarily consents to an action having full information available of the consequences and is a reflection of a modern cultural norm around personal autonomy. I think it's correct in relation to medical procedures related to pregnancy but I would not apply the legal test or the modern cultural norms about personal autonomy to a religious story about a supernatural non-sexual pregnancy that was written centuries ago in order to demonstrate supernatural phenomena or Mary's religious devotion.

Why not? If you think the modern definition of informed consent is morally better than what preceded it (basically servants doing as they were told) and you accept that in the virgin birth story there was not/could not have been informed consent and that the God who did the impregnating (by whatever means) is morally perfect then somewhere in there you have a contradiction. Either current morality is better than the version god practised (therefore god is not morally perfect); or god is morally perfect, therefore modern morality is wrong re informed consent. You can have either, but you can’t have both.   

The whole premise of the story is that Mary is religiously devoted therefore the pregnancy and the birth of Jesus is a blessing.

So you’re suggesting that behaving in a way you’d find morally wrong is ok when the end justifies the means? Hasn’t that been the rationale for misogynistic behaviour especially down the ages?   

This story you are all quoting from is not presented in a way to be used as rebuttal against a legal charge of rape or a medical procedure without informed consent etc so this line of argument is complete nonsense. I'm amazed that supposedly intelligent people are wasting their time digging into a Biblical story for evidence of consent.

You’re deflecting here. The central issue is that a young girl was impregnated when she could not have given informed consent to the impregnation. This story is presented as “presented” as morally good. I don’t think it is.     

[ProfessorDavey]

Informed consent ...

Hmm - ethics 101 failed. Tell me what uninformed consent is VG?

... is a legal term ...

No it isn't - the term is valid consent, which needs to meet all of the three required elements for consent.

... that means a person voluntarily consents ...

Again oxymoron - what is non-voluntary consent?.

... to an action having full information available of the consequences ...

Nope - common misnomer - consent doesn't require 'full' information, which is often both impossible and can act against the basis of consent - effectively being unable to see the wood for the trees. Valid consent requires there to be sufficient information to support the voluntary decision making of a person who has the capacity to consent.

Hey VG, my ethics module will start again in late January - perhaps you should come along. Looks like you need a bit of updating on understanding of consent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

No I don't accept that because as soon as you have people, there is human intervention, because the human brain is interpreting information and the brain does not interpret information in a vacuum but in the context of its nurture/nature  - it interprets words and forms moral thoughts and ideas and values based on prior information already stored in the brain from genetic and various environmental sources including cultural sources, separate and independent from the words in the Bible.

You’re missing the point. The only people here are the audience, but the delivery mechanism doesn’t need people too. Real people are affected by religions whether or not clerics or RE teachers or anyone else are involved, just as real people are affected by Beethoven CDs whether or not musicians or music teachers or anyone else are involved. Religions, music etc have a “life of their own” in that sense as their effects carry on long after original authorship. Calling the mechanisms by which it happens artefacts, memes, whatever doesn’t really matter for this purpose. It still happens.     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No it isn't - see below.
Of course, but the argument is to challenge Vlad's view that the story, as written, is sufficient to indicate that Mary consented. I'm not arguing about whether was is written actually happened, but if it happened as described whether there would be evidence for consent. There isn't and strong evidence against consent on the basis of lack of voluntariness.
I don't disagree - but that isn't the issue - Vlad thinks the story provides evidence of consent - that is non-sense to anyone who has any understanding of what consent is, and indeed what consent was considered to be in the 1stC, which is pretty well identical to how we see it now. Indeed Plato and Aristotle wrote on consent in a manner that is completely recognisible today and the Roman's embedded the same concepts into their laws. The notion of what consent is hasn't really changed over millennia - what has changed is when and where we consider it to be important.

The story as written isn't evidence for much more than the character's (Mary's) religious devotion and the supernatural origins of the Jesus character. Is Vlad arguing that the NT text is evidence that the events described actually happened? I thought Vlad had expressed the opinion that this was a matter of faith and belief? If you use the the story to conjecture about morality relating to consent then it is equally valid to use the same story to argue against that conjecture. 

[ProfessorDavey]

VG,

Why not? If you think the modern definition of informed consent is morally better than what preceded it (basically servants doing as they were told) ...

No - I think you are falling in the VG trap. The modern point is that now we consider consent to be important in a much wider range of scenarios than was the case in 1stC cultures. It isn't that those cultures defined consent in a different manner - how the ancient Greeks and Romans saw consent retains exactly the same elements as we use to define it.

First - person must have capacity to consent - ancient cultures recognised this which is why there was then (as there is now) ages at which children were deemed to take their own decisions.

Second - voluntariness - Plato wrote of consent being a quality of a free person.

Thirdly - information - Hippocrates also talked of the need to provide information to patients.

The issue isn't that consent was defined differently back then - nope the issue is that back then society considered consent to be unimportant in many situations where now we would consider it to be essential and without consent unlawful.

[ProfessorDavey]

Is Vlad arguing that the NT text is evidence that the events described actually happened?

he will have to answer for himself, but my reading of his comments is, yes, he does consider that the events actually happened.

I thought Vlad had expressed the opinion that this was a matter of faith and belief? If you use the the story to conjecture about morality relating to consent then it is equally valid to use the same story to argue against that conjecture.

On consent - Vlad is arguing that the NT text provides sufficient evidence that Mary consented, presuming that what is described happened as described. That is complete non-sense. What is described is, at best, an acquiescence by a person to a decision taken by someone else that she clearly felt unable to refuse, hence the servant bit. And there is no evidence that she was even being given a choice - 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 then there can be no consent as consent implies a genuine ability of the individual to choose between outcomes.

[Sriram]

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

Maybe it is just a story. According to the story however, God is all knowing, the creator of the universe, creator of all life and the world moves to his will.  He creates and destroys at his will. Why the heck would such a God ask for consent before impregnating a woman? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Why not? If you think the modern definition of informed consent is morally better than what preceded it (basically servants doing as they were told)

What is morally wrong with servants doing as they are told, on the basis that someone wants to become a servant and be told what to do? Plus as I already said the word 'servant' is a metaphor in religious terms - so what is morally wrong with wanting to serve?

and you accept that in the virgin birth story there was not/could not have been informed consent

Why would I accept there could not have been informed consent in a  story worded to demonstrate religious devotion?

and that the God who did the impregnating (by whatever means) is morally perfect then somewhere in there you have a contradiction.

No you don't. You just have a story about a supernatural event and religious devotion.

Either current morality is better than the version god practised (therefore god is not morally perfect); or god is morally perfect, therefore modern morality is wrong re informed consent. You can have either, but you can’t have both.   

You can have neither, given this is a story to demonstrate a supernatural event and religious devotion. It is not a story to demonstrate the morals of informed consent.

So you’re suggesting that behaving in a way you’d find morally wrong is ok when the end justifies the means? Hasn’t that been the rationale for misogynistic behaviour especially down the ages?

Nope, haven't suggested that. You do get that this story is not to illustrate the morality of consent in human interactions right?

You’re deflecting here. The central issue is that a young girl was impregnated when she could not have given informed consent to the impregnation. This story is presented as “presented” as morally good. I don’t think it is.   

Nope, not deflecting. You do know that simply stating I am deflecting is meaningless - you are entitled to your opinion of course but I'll just disagree with it and state my own opinion. 

The central issue in this story is not about consent but about religious devotion. I would suggest you check with the authors of the story but of course you can't. Your next option is to check with the people who repeat the story what it is they are trying to convey when they tell it.

You are of course free to interpret the story how you want and to try to shoehorn concepts such as consent and personal autonomy into it but others will have different interpretations of the story e.g. it's a story to demonstrate a girl/ woman's religious devotion and a supernatural event. Whatever Mary's age is supposed to be in the story - again you will have to ask the authors or the people who tell the story how old she is supposed to be - the idea being conveyed is that she is of an age where in that time period she would marry and have children. The authors might want to convey the idea of youth because it may have been a metaphor for innocence and purity, who knows or whoever translated the text could have had that idea in their minds.

My youngest just had an interview for Oxford university and was presented with a piece translated from Latin into English and in response to a question she made the point to the professors who were interviewing her that translations are subjective depending on the background / context of the person doing the translating, which could lead to be variations in the translation of a particular word. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe it is just a story. According to the story however, God is all knowing, the creator of the universe, creator of all life and the world moves to his will.  He creates and destroys at his will. Why the heck would such a God ask for consent before impregnating a woman? 

Sure it is just a story, but you are of course correct that a god as described (and importantly described by 1stC writers for whom consent would have been far less important than we consider it today) is likely to be completely disinterested in whether Mary consented.

But Vlad seems to think that the text, as written, somehow shows god asking Mary whether, or not, she agrees in a manner that supports consent (i.e. she has capacity, sufficient information and is genuinely free to choose voluntarily free from pressure, coercion etc). That simply does not exist in the text - what we have is Mary being told what will happen to her and her meekly acquiescing as a servant, which definitionally means being controlled by someone else, which makes consent impossible.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hmm - ethics 101 failed. Tell me what uninformed consent is VG?
No it isn't - the term is valid consent, which needs to meet all of the three required elements for consent.
Again oxymoron - what is non-voluntary consent?.
Nope - common misnomer - consent doesn't require 'full' information, which is often both impossible and can act against the basis of consent - effectively being unable to see the wood for the trees. Valid consent requires there to be sufficient information to support the voluntary decision making of a person who has the capacity to consent.

Hey VG, my ethics module will start again in late January - perhaps you should come along. Looks like you need a bit of updating on understanding of consent.

If you need help understanding informed consent  try here PD https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/

Defining consent
For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.

The meaning of these terms are:

voluntary – the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family

informed – the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead

capacity – the person must be capable of giving consent, which means they understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision

If an adult has the capacity to make a voluntary and informed decision to consent to or refuse a particular treatment, their decision must be respected.

[ProfessorDavey]

What is morally wrong with servants doing as they are told, on the basis that someone wants to become a servant and be told what to do?

Whether or not that is morally right or wrong is a completely different matter to whether it is consent. If a servant feels obliged to follow the decision of someone else then there is no consent, as consent requires that individual to be in a position to make the choice themselves.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you need help understanding informed consent  try here PD https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/

Defining consent
For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.

The meaning of these terms are:

voluntary – the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family

informed – the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead

capacity – the person must be capable of giving consent, which means they understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision

If an adult has the capacity to make a voluntary and informed decision to consent to or refuse a particular treatment, their decision must be respected.

Thanks VG - I'm well aware of that and an awful lot more than what is in your teeny tiny lay-person summary. If you were one of my students (who need to understand these issues in a professional capacity rather than as a lay person) you'd lose marks as follows.

On information - the standard is 'sufficient' or 'adequate' information, not 'full' information (which is likely impossible or at the very least impractical) - those element you describe would certainly be expected in sufficient or adequate information, but there is no requirement to provide information on every conceivable risk, however unlikely. The 'legal' test is the reasonable person test, but with the added safeguard of ensuring that a patient can ask questions so they can 'tune' the information to their own needs.

On capacity - sure, but to get full marks you'd need also to include the requirement to be able to retain the information, to believe the information and that the test only requires a person to be able to come to a decision, the 'reasonableness' of that decision is irrelevant.

All this will be covered in weeks 1-3 of my module. Perhaps you'd enjoy it. The students will need to write an information sheet for a hypothetical case study - this makes them consider the difference between 'sufficient' or 'adequate' information and 'full' information. It is a common failure for students at the beginning of the module to think that full information needs to be provided - this coursework soon makes them realise this isn't possible, nor desirable.

[Sriram]

Sure it is just a story, but you are of course correct that a god as described (and importantly described by 1stC writers for whom consent would have been far less important than we consider it today) is likely to be completely disinterested in whether Mary consented.

But Vlad seems to think that the text, as written, somehow shows god asking Mary whether, or not, she agrees in a manner that supports consent (i.e. she has capacity, sufficient information and is genuinely free to choose voluntarily free from pressure, coercion etc). That simply does not exist in the text - what we have is Mary being told what will happen to her and her meekly acquiescing as a servant, which definitionally means being controlled by someone else, which makes consent impossible.

Given the situation, where is the question of consent? Why are you going on and on about it?  We are not talking of Weinstein here for heavens sake!

[ProfessorDavey]

Given the situation, where is the question of consent? Why are you going on and on about it?  We are not talking of Weinstein here for heavens sake!

Because Vlad claims there is evidence in the text sufficient to conclude that Mary consented. There isn't.

If you don't think there is evidence of consent - then that's great, you and I agree. But I suggest you take that up with Vlad.

[Sriram]

Because Vlad claims there is evidence in the text sufficient to conclude that Mary consented. There isn't.

If you don't think there is evidence of consent - then that's great, you and I agree. But I suggest you take that up with Vlad.

I am saying that consent is irrelevant given the characters involved... 

[Aruntraveller]

Why the heck would such a God ask for consent before impregnating a woman? 

Because it's the polite thing to do?

If you are positing a God that can't even show some basic respect, I'm really not interested.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Thanks VG - I'm well aware of that and an awful lot more than what is in your teeny tiny lay-person summary. If you were one of my students (who need to understand these issues in a professional capacity rather than as a lay person) you'd lose marks as follows.

On information - the standard is 'sufficient' or 'adequate' information, not 'full' information (which is likely impossible or at the very least impractical) - those element you describe would certainly be expected in sufficient or adequate information, but there is no requirement to provide information on every conceivable risk, however unlikely. The 'legal' test is the reasonable person test, but with the added safeguard of ensuring that a patient can ask questions so they can 'tune' the information to their own needs.

On capacity - sure, but to get full marks you'd need also to include the requirement to be able to retain the information, to believe the information and that the test only requires a person to be able to come to a decision, the 'reasonableness' of that decision is irrelevant.

All this will be covered in weeks 1-3 of my module. Perhaps you'd enjoy it. The students will need to write an information sheet for a hypothetical case study - this makes them consider the difference between 'sufficient' or 'adequate' information and 'full' information. It is a common failure for students at the beginning of the module to think that full information needs to be provided - this coursework soon makes them realise this isn't possible, nor desirable.

If you want to lecture on the ethics of consent I suggest you start a thread on that topic rather than derailing this topic. I think the ethics of consent would be an interesting discussion and very informative. The NHS concept of consent that I linked to and quoted from (so it's not my definition of consent but the NHS website definition of consent) is sufficient for the points that have been made about lack of consent to pregnancy on this thread, which I personally think is irrelevant to the story.

As an aside, your frequent need to keep presenting your supposed credentials to try to bolster your arguments could be interpreted as you feeling insecure about the arguments you make ....not that it matters, your arguments stand or fall here on their own merits. Your profession is irrelevant.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

No - I think you are falling in the VG trap. The modern point is that now we consider consent to be important in a much wider range of scenarios than was the case in 1stC cultures. It isn't that those cultures defined consent in a different manner - how the ancient Greeks and Romans saw consent retains exactly the same elements as we use to define it.

With respect, I don’t think I am. It’s got nothing to do with the morality of ancient Greeks and Romans. The relevant character in this story is “god”, who we’re told is morally perfect. Thus what this god did (ie, impregnate an under-age Palestinian servant) must also have been morally perfect too. What “He” did though conflicts with modern ideas about consent, so either god was wrong or our current position on consent is wrong. It’s either/or, but can’t be both.       

First - person must have capacity to consent - ancient cultures recognised this which is why there was then (as there is now) ages at which children were deemed to take their own decisions.

Second - voluntariness - Plato wrote of consent being a quality of a free person.

Thirdly - information - Hippocrates also talked of the need to provide information to patients.

Yes I know. According to the story though “god” drove a coach and four through all that. That’s the point.

The issue isn't that consent was defined differently back then - nope the issue is that back then society considered consent to be unimportant in many situations where now we would consider it to be essential and without consent unlawful.

Again, yes I know. But now we're putting our current consideration of the role of consent against that of a morally perfect god. Forget society back then – that’s nothing to do with it. It’s god vs modern us, Alien vs Predator. Who wins morally?

(Ok, maybe not that last pair…).     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

he will have to answer for himself, but my reading of his comments is, yes, he does consider that the events actually happened.

That isn't what I asked. I asked if Vlad was arguing that the modern day translation of the NT is evidence that the events actually happened. I know Vlad believes that Mary was a virgin who gave birth to Jesus, who is the son of God/ God in human form or some variation of this. But I was under the impression that he believed this as a matter of faith and that he thinks the NT stories are evidence that other people also believed that Mary was a virgin who gave birth to etc etc 

On consent - Vlad is arguing that the NT text provides sufficient evidence that Mary consented, presuming that what is described happened as described. That is complete non-sense. What is described is, at best, an acquiescence by a person to a decision taken by someone else that she clearly felt unable to refuse, hence the servant bit. And there is no evidence that she was even being given a choice - 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 then there can be no consent as consent implies a genuine ability of the individual to choose between outcomes.

Per my earlier point, if you are going to use the words in a NT story written to convey religious devotion, to assert that the story is demonstrating a lack of consent, then it is equally valid for Vlad to assert the opposite using the words in the same story.

Your interpretation of the words may be that "she clearly felt unable to refuse". Interpretations are varied due to bias, therefore alternative interpretations of the words are available. Another interpretation is that she wanted to serve and felt the hardships and sacrifices she would face was worth it to be given the opportunity to serve God and her community by carrying and giving birth to someone who "will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High....holy...Son of God" etc etc. People often do choose to make heroic sacrifices and face significant hardships for others and there are many stories floating around conveying this idea.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you want to lecture on the ethics of consent ...

Which is exactly what I will be doing, starting in mid January to a bunch of about 60 masters-level students.

I suggest you start a thread on that topic rather than derailing this topic.

I don't think it is a derail as it leads directly from Vlad claim that the NT text provides sufficient evidence that Mary consented (which I don't agree with) and the suggestions that the nature/definition of consent was somehow radically different in the 1stC compared to now (which I also don't agree with, although I fully accept that the scope of when and where consent is considered to be key has changed dramatically).

I think the ethics of consent would be an interesting discussion and very informative.

Yup, it is interesting, which is why I enjoy discussing it with my students.

The NHS concept of consent that I linked to is sufficient for the points that have been made about lack of consent to pregnancy on this thread ...

Up to a point - the NHS info doesn't explicitly cover the whole issue of power relationships which is critical to understanding voluntariness in consent. And is particularly relevant to a situation where (hypothetically) a god tells someone that something will happen to them, when that person considers themselves in servitude to that god.

... which I personally think is irrelevant to the story.

To an extent I agree - I don't think the writers of the NT gave a second though to the need for consent as that would have been completely alien to them in those times and circumstances. However, Vlad claimed there to be evidence of consent - that's the starting point for the discussion.

As an aside, your frequent need to keep presenting your supposed credentials to try to bolster your arguments could be interpreted as you feeling insecure about the arguments you make ....not that it matters, your arguments stand or fall here on their own merits.

Right back at you - you often make snide comments about my credentials. On this thread:

'Let's hope you don't take this same nonsensical approach in the rest of your life outside this Message Board.' - you will note that I made no mention of my professional involvement in this area prior to your snide comment. But if you want to try to undermine my credibility beyond this MB, I will respond in kind.

Your profession is irrelevant.

No it isn't - you are beginning to sound like Gove 'we've had enough of experts'.

I think the notion that someone is professionally qualified in a particular field and teaches in that field is highly relevant in a discussion about that particular field.

Would you say that it is irrelevant in a discussion about cancer treatment that a person may professionally be a cancer specialist?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which is exactly what I will be doing, starting in mid January to a bunch of about 60 masters-level students.
I don't think it is a derail as it leads directly from Vlad claim that the NT text provides sufficient evidence that Mary consented (which I don't agree with) and the suggestions that the nature/definition of consent was somehow radically different in the 1stC compared to now (which I also don't agree with, although I fully accept that the scope of when and where consent is considered to be key has changed dramatically).
Yup, it is interesting, which is why I enjoy discussing it with my students.
Up to a point - the NHS info doesn't explicitly cover the whole issue of power relationships which is critical to understanding voluntariness in consent. And is particularly relevant to a situation where (hypothetically) a god tells someone that something will happen to them, when that person considers themselves in servitude to that god.
To an extent I agree - I don't think the writers of the NT gave a second though to the need for consent as that would have been completely alien to them in those times and circumstances. However, Vlad claimed there to be evidence of consent - that's the starting point for the discussion.
Right back at you - you often make snide comments about my credentials. On this thread:

'Let's hope you don't take this same nonsensical approach in the rest of your life outside this Message Board.' - you will note that I made no mention of my professional involvement in this area prior to your snide comment. But if you want to try to undermine my credibility beyond this MB, I will respond in kind.
No it isn't - you are beginning to sound like Gove 'we've had enough of experts'.

I think the notion that someone is professionally qualified in a particular field and teaches in that field is highly relevant in a discussion about that particular field.

Would you say that it is irrelevant in a discussion about cancer treatment that a person may professionally be a cancer specialist?

I just edited my post to include "so it's not my definition of consent but the NHS website definition of consent" but you had already quoted my post.

It's not relevant that you teach a particular field if you make a bad argument. The argument stands or falls on its own merits.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Prof,

With respect, I don’t think I am. It’s got nothing to do with the morality of ancient Greeks and Romans. The relevant character in this story is “god”, who we’re told is morally perfect. Thus what this god did (ie, impregnate an under-age Palestinian servant) must also have been morally perfect too. What “He” did though conflicts with modern ideas about consent, so either god was wrong or our current position on consent is wrong. It’s either/or, but can’t be both.       

That's not how it works though. Our current modern idea of consent will change, and keep changing as new information comes to light or social norms change. For example the legal age of consent is different in different countries and what you can and cannot consent to changes depending on the country or over time. Often this depends on factors such as what the latest judges in a particular geographic location interpret as law or what the Legislative passes as law or how much influence is exerted by stakeholders e.g. lobby groups. What is right or wrong keeps changing.