Religions have succeeded

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

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?

Did you actually just say “on the basis that someone wants to become a servant and be told what to do?”. How do you suppose that worked then – Mary turned up at the job centre one Monday morning, and the clerk said: ”OK, let’s see what we’ve got today. Ooh, Emperor –that’s a good one. Several senator positions going begging too I see, plus we have something open as the chief architect for temples that might interest you. What’s that you say Mary – “have we got something more in the servant line?” Well yes, if that’s your choice I’m sure we could find something for you. Are you sure though? After all, with these other jobs you’d have servants of your own, plus chariots and wine and free tickets to the circus and stuff? No?...“sounds great, but you really fancy giving servanting a go” do you? Well, on your head be it then...”         
 

Plus as I already said the word 'servant' is a metaphor in religious terms - so what is morally wrong with wanting to serve?

“Wanting”? “Wanting”!!!

You do say he darndest things sometimes Gabriella…

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

Age and power dynamic for two starters.

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

That’s presented as morally good remember?

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.

Either you think it’s a story presented as morally good or you don’t. As it’s presented in the Bible though do you not think the intention was the former rather than to describe god’s morally bad act?   

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

That’s just what you suggested, and that’s exactly what’s baked in to the story – “god did it, therefore it was morally good”.   

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.

It’s not simply stating – it’s showing you what you did, but ok… 

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. 

Yeah, and Aesop’s fable of the hare and the tortoise was only about two animals racing each other. Oh no, wait, it’s was about other things too. Well blow me down – turns out stories can have multiple meanings! Who’d have thought it eh?

The Bible is to god as the Telegraph is to the Tory party. It’s a fan mag. Any references to god are all about what a great guy he is/was. If god impregnated an underage Palestinian servant girl then by its own definition of a morally perfect deity that must therefore have been a morally good thing to do! Whoopee!

Here’s the thing though: by modern lights it was a morally contemptible thing to do. Whose morality wins then – ours, or the god of the Bible’s?       
 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Actually it isn't the NHS's definition of consent either as they don't 'own' the definition of consent. What is on the NHS page you provided is a brief summary of consent for the lay-person. And as with brief summaries for the lay-person it is somewhat simplified and lacking in detail. If you want the details and the whole picture you need something aimed at professionals. Hmm, maybe the sort of thing that a professional in this field might deliver in an post-graduate educational/training context to others who wish to be professionals where consent is a key professional issue.

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.

What bad argument?

My argument is that a key element for consent is voluntariness - is that a bad argument?

Secondly that when you go into detail on voluntariness as an element of consent the notion that power relationships may act to nullify voluntariness is absolutely front and centre - is that a bad argument?

Thirdly that for there to be voluntariness that the individual must genuinely feel that they are empowered to make a decision either way free from pressure/coercion etc - is that a bad argument?

And therefore someone who is hypothetically visited by god (or an angel from god) who tells them that something will happen to them is being subjected to the most hum-dinger of power relationships - is that a bad argument?

And that if that person states that they are subservient to the will of god that they therefore consider themselves unable to act in a way that is counter to that will of god - is that a bad argument?

And under those circumstances the thresholds for voluntariness in consent are not met, meaning there is no valid consent - is that a bad argument?

I suspect you are just being ... well ... argumentative VG

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

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.

Yes I know. And when it changes the societies that change it think they’re changing it for the better. That’s the point. The morality of each society is the best they think it can be at the time they enact it. They don’t say, “we know that slavery thing we used to have was shit, but let’s give it another go anyway”. Currently in the UK (as elsewhere) we’ve decided that consent is morally better than non-consent.

The god of the Bible on the other hand drove a coach and horses through our modern position on consent, yet we’re also told that “He” was morally perfect and so therefore must have been everything he did.

Can you see it now? Either this morally perfect god behaved morally well (in which case our current position on consent is wrong), or “He” behaved morally badly (in which case our position on consent is cool and god isn't morally perfect).

As I said – you can have either, but you can’t have both.       

[ProfessorDavey]

They don’t say, “we know that slavery thing we used to have was shit, but let’s give it another go anyway”.

The slavery analogy is actually quite a good one.

By and large we still define slavery in the same manner as we did 2000 years ago. The issue isn't a re-definition of slavery, but that it was once deemed largely acceptable in many contexts, but now isn't.

So the same applies to consent - we still define consent by and large how Plato or Hyppocrites would have understood it. The issue isn't a re-definition of consent - nope, the issue is that consent was once deemed unnecessary, or even undesirable in many contexts, but now we consider it, ethically, to be essential in all sorts of settings and contexts.

And this is why Vlad's arguments are so non-sensical. So firstly, anyone with any modicum of understanding of consent would recognise that the NT text doesn't demonstrate consent what so ever, quite the reverse. But, and other people have pointed this out too, in the context of 1stC thinking the writers wouldn't have given a second thought to consent. My (and others it appears) reading of:

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

is that it is all about demonstrating Mary's devotion and submission to authority, which is the complete opposite of autonomy manifested through consent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

The slavery analogy is actually quite a good one.

By and large we still define slavery in the same manner as we did 2000 years ago. The issue isn't a re-definition of slavery, but that it was once deemed largely acceptable in many contexts, but now isn't.

So the same applies to consent - we still define consent by and large how Plato or Hyppocrites would have understood it. The issue isn't a re-definition of consent - nope, the issue is that consent was once deemed unnecessary, or even undesirable in many contexts, but now we consider it, ethically, to be essential in all sorts of settings and contexts.

And this is why Vlad's arguments are so non-sensical. So firstly, anyone with any modicum of understanding of consent would recognise that the NT text doesn't demonstrate consent what so ever, quite the reverse. But, and other people have pointed this out too, in the context of 1stC thinking the writers wouldn't have given a second thought to consent. My (and others it appears) reading of:

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

is that it is all about demonstrating Mary's devotion and submission to authority, which is the complete opposite of autonomy manifested through consent.

I agree with all that, but the point here still I think is that, regardless of their contemporary moral precepts, the authors presumably thought they were describing accurately the action of a morally perfect god. By modern, Western standards that action was morally contemptible, but if we take the account at face value (yeah I know, but anyway…) either the god of the story was morally right to act as he did (so current morality is wrong), or our current position on consent is morally better (so god was wrong). It can't be both though.         

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Did you actually just say “on the basis that someone wants to become a servant and be told what to do?”. How do you suppose that worked then – Mary turned up at the job centre one Monday morning, and the clerk said: ”OK, let’s see what we’ve got today. Ooh, Emperor –that’s a good one. Several senator positions going begging too I see, plus we have something open as the chief architect for temples that might interest you. What’s that you say Mary – “have we got something more in the servant line?” Well yes, if that’s your choice I’m sure we could find something for you. Are you sure though? After all, with these other jobs you’d have servants of your own, plus chariots and wine and free tickets to the circus and stuff? No?...“sounds great, but you really fancy giving servanting a go” do you? Well, on your head be it then...”         
 

It works like this. You believe in the concept of a hierarchy and you believe in a particular form of hierarchy being something you want to join and be part of because you believe the benefits outweigh the costs, You then believe that within that hierarchical oranisation/ movement/ social group/ tribe etc you want to join, specific people or a person - or in the case of religions, a supernatural entity or entities -  has/have the right to tell you what to do. You then decide to go along with doing what they tell you to do...except when you decide you don't want to and then you stop doing what they tell you to do. There may be consequences to your refusal - e.g. you may be socially excluded/ fired from a job/ leave an organisation/ be ex-communicated from a church/ be court-martialled/ / feel liberated/ feel in yourself you have failed in your religious/ moral/ social/ political duty/ be judged by others to have failed  etc etc 

“Wanting”? “Wanting”!!!

You do say he darndest things sometimes Gabriella…

Not sure what your point is. Lots of people want to serve various causes. Nuns, priests, religious devotees, or soldiers wanting to serve and sacrifice for abstract concepts such as honour or freedom 

Age and power dynamic for two starters.

What is wrong with Mary's age? In that time and context of when the story was written, her age seems to be the usual age to marry, and we don't actually know her age. Maybe her age constantly changes depending on who is telling the story and the society they are relating the story to and the year the story is being related. Or maybe people don't really care what age she is supposed to be as that is not the point of the story.

Power dynamic - what about it? If the story is presented as a story of religious devotion to religiously-inclined people who believe in a higher power that has created everything, then the power of this "higher power" would have to be a key element of the story for the story to be of interest to the people it is aimed at.

That’s presented as morally good remember?

Either you think it’s a story presented as morally good or you don’t. As it’s presented in the Bible though do you not think the intention was the former rather than to describe god’s morally bad act?

I think the story is presented by its authors with the intention of being seen as morally good on the basis of the beliefs of its authors and their target audience.   

That’s just what you suggested, and that’s exactly what’s baked in to the story – “god did it, therefore it was morally good”. 

Nope, I didn't suggest that "behaving in a way you’d find morally wrong is ok when the end justifies the means".

It’s not simply stating – it’s showing you what you did, but ok…

Again it's just your opinion that you showed me what I did. I don't think you showed me what I did because I don't think I deflected. You can think I deflected if you want to though.

Yeah, and Aesop’s fable of the hare and the tortoise was only about two animals racing each other. Oh no, wait, it’s was about other things too. Well blow me down – turns out stories can have multiple meanings! Who’d have thought it eh?

As I said, you can interpret any story how you want. However, demanding that other people interpret stories the same way you do hasn't worked. People will just disagree with your interpretation, as has happened here.

The Bible is to god as the Telegraph is to the Tory party. It’s a fan mag. Any references to god are all about what a great guy he is/was. If god impregnated an underage Palestinian servant girl then by its own definition of a morally perfect deity that must therefore have been a morally good thing to do! Whoopee!

The Bible would present creation by a higher power as a morally good thing, regardless of the hardships that follow on from creation. Presumably because in this religious value system, along with the belief in a higher creator power that created life, is the belief that the higher power has the right to take life away, make life difficult etc etc

Here’s the thing though: by modern lights it was a morally contemptible thing to do.

No idea what you mean by that sentence. There isn't one modern view about what is or isn't morally contemptible for a god to do.

Whose morality wins then – ours, or the god of the Bible’s?

Dunno - depends who you ask I suppose.     
 

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,

I agree with all that, but the point here still I think is that, regardless of their contemporary moral precepts, the authors presumably thought they were describing accurately the action of a morally perfect god. By modern, Western standards that action was morally contemptible, but if we take the account at face value (yeah I know, but anyway…) either the god of the story was morally right to act as he did (so current morality is wrong), or our current position on consent is morally better (so god was wrong). It can't be both though.       

Yes - that's about right. I think by the standards of the writers of the story this was perfectly accepted, indeed expected. That their god could do as they wish and the job of humans was to submit to that will, however (to our modern standards) morally reprehensible.

1stC writers would have given a second thought to consent in this context - to would have been completely irrelevant to them. Which is why Vlad trying to claim the text shows evidence of consent is revisionist non-sense, as well as fundamentally misunderstanding what consent actually is.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Actually it isn't the NHS's definition of consent either as they don't 'own' the definition of consent. What is on the NHS page you provided is a brief summary of consent for the lay-person. And as with brief summaries for the lay-person it is somewhat simplified and lacking in detail. If you want the details and the whole picture you need something aimed at professionals. Hmm, maybe the sort of thing that a professional in this field might deliver in an post-graduate educational/training context to others who wish to be professionals where consent is a key professional issue.

Again, as already mentioned, the arguments presented about consent from the limited information in the Bible story were brief summaries for lay-people, therefore the response will also be a brief summary for lay people. If you want to have a more detailed discussion on consent, then start a new thread rather than derailing this one. Sriram's OP and the discussions that followed were mostly all lay-persons' brief summaries about consent. 

What bad argument?

My argument is that a key element for consent is voluntariness - is that a bad argument?

Secondly that when you go into detail on voluntariness as an element of consent the notion that power relationships may act to nullify voluntariness is absolutely front and centre - is that a bad argument?

Thirdly that for there to be voluntariness that the individual must genuinely feel that they are empowered to make a decision either way free from pressure/coercion etc - is that a bad argument?

And therefore someone who is hypothetically visited by god (or an angel from god) who tells them that something will happen to them is being subjected to the most hum-dinger of power relationships - is that a bad argument?

And that if that person states that they are subservient to the will of god that they therefore consider themselves unable to act in a way that is counter to that will of god - is that a bad argument?

And under those circumstances the thresholds for voluntariness in consent are not met, meaning there is no valid consent - is that a bad argument?

I suspect you are just being ... well ... argumentative VG

I suggest you start a new thread on the voluntariness of consent and we can discuss your arguments there. It's an interesting topic. I don't know if you want to narrow it to the voluntariness of consent in a religious context e.g. if you can't choose beliefs are your religious beliefs and actions based on your beliefs voluntary e.g. an adult who gets circumcised because he thinks it is required by his religious beliefs and so he feels a sense of obligation to be circumcised? 

Or widen the discussion out to how voluntary consent is if you join various hierarchical organisations e.g. if you join the army and are told you have to participate in the gas chamber test where you "voluntarily" expose yourself to CS gas. Or you voluntarily expose yourself to biological weapons on the battlefield and do not leave your post etc etc. If you feel under a sense of obligation/ duty/ societal pressure to adhere to a moral code and therefore participate in these activities, was your choice really voluntary?

[ProfessorDavey]

Again, as already mentioned, the arguments presented about consent from the limited information in the Bible story were brief summaries for lay-people, therefore the response will also be a brief summary for lay people.

Not sure I get your argument. Are you suggesting that both the NHS web-page and the text in the NT are brief summaries for lay people. This may be true, but there is an important distinction. For the NHS information - while this may be a lay summary, we can readily go to the wealth of more detailed stuff, perhaps aimed at professionals from which the lay summary is derived.

By contrast for the NT text we cannot do the same as this is all the information we have - we cannot go to the more detailed 'source' material, because it either never existed and/or has been lost in the mists of time.

[ProfessorDavey]

Power dynamic - what about it?

It is absolutely critical if we are considering consent.

Any power dynamic which means that an individual fetters their discretion to choose one course of action over another because they feel obligated to act in accordance with an authority figure means that the voluntariness element of consent it lost. And if the voluntary element is lost then there is no consent.

And actually this isn't anything new in terms of understanding of consent. As far as I am aware Plato considered that people in servitude were simply unable to consent as they were unable to take their own decisions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes - that's about right. I think by the standards of the writers of the story this was perfectly accepted, indeed expected. That their god could do as they wish and the job of humans was to submit to that will, however (to our modern standards) morally reprehensible.

1stC writers would have given a second thought to consent in this context - to would have been completely irrelevant to them. Which is why Vlad trying to claim the text shows evidence of consent is revisionist non-sense, as well as fundamentally misunderstanding what consent actually is.

So it’s pseudohistory now? What evidence are you drawing this sweeping statement about 1st century writers from?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is absolutely critical if we are considering consent.

Any power dynamic which means that an individual fetters their discretion to choose one course of action over another because they feel obligated to act in accordance with an authority figure means that the voluntariness element of consent it lost. And if the voluntary element is lost then there is no consent.

And actually this isn't anything new in terms of understanding of consent. As far as I am aware Plato considered that people in servitude were simply unable to consent as they were unable to take their own decisions.

Verse 38 renders this objection erroneous. You cannot dismiss implied consent and coercion cannot be demonstrated, voluntary decision is.

Your argument is therefore solely based on your caricature of the supposed subservience of first century Jews.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not sure I get your argument. Are you suggesting that both the NHS web-page and the text in the NT are brief summaries for lay people. This may be true, but there is an important distinction. For the NHS information - while this may be a lay summary, we can readily go to the wealth of more detailed stuff, perhaps aimed at professionals from which the lay summary is derived.

By contrast for the NT text we cannot do the same as this is all the information we have - we cannot go to the more detailed 'source' material, because it either never existed and/or has been lost in the mists of time.

Yes that's true - there is more information available today if we want to have a discussion on consent in professional contexts such as medical procedures or participation in medical research etc.

There are various legal cases and guidance on the need for informed consent to medical care and procedures  https://www.graysons.co.uk/medical-negligence/informed-consent-and-the-new-law/
 
And guidance on whether consent is voluntary or whether the lack of meaningful choice or pressure being applied on a person invalidates their consent.

But that wasn't the focus of the Nativity story. The story mentions that Mary said "Let it be" or similar words when according to the story the angel foretold God's plan for Mary to carry a son created by God rather than conceived the usual way. But the authors did not elaborate on whether or not Mary's "Let it be" was due to feeling pressured to agree to the pregnancy, since the main focus was not consent to the health risks of pregnancy or consent to being pregnant. It seems to have been written and translated with the focus being on emphasising religious devotion and supernatural events.

I am therefore suggesting that posters are wasting their time trying to find evidence for or against consent in the words of the Nativity story as there is not enough material to make a finding either way, as consent was not what the story sought to illustrate.  Hence having a detailed discussion using the Nativity story is not possible due to lack of information, and people were discussing the issue of consent in layman's terms.

In any story where it is narrated that God has indicated a preference for a course of action, and a believer in that God then follows that course of action, it would be a bit tedious if we kept discussing consent and power dynamics. If you want a discussion about the religious beliefs around the power dynamics between a higher power (creator) and its creation, why not start a thread on that. It might be interesting to understand why such power dynamics in religion appeal to some people and alienate others.

[ProfessorDavey]

Verse 38 renders this objection erroneous. You cannot dismiss implied consent and coercion cannot be demonstrated, voluntary decision is.

There is no implied consent in verse 38, let alone explicit consent.

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

I a clear expression of submission to authority, which is the diametric opposite of consent.

[ProfessorDavey]

So it’s pseudohistory now? What evidence are you drawing this sweeping statement about 1st century writers from?

From the huge amount of information from historians about how various societies operated in the 1stC.

Sure consent was a thing, but its impact was very limited and indeed was in many cases actively discouraged in decision making (see Plato). And where it did operate it was restricted to those in established positions of authority, largely men in privileged positions. Someone in Mary's position - young, female, not from a wealthy/privileged background would be expected to submit to authority in terms of decision making rather than be in a position to take those decisions herself.

Why do you think that the writers of the NT would have strayed from the overarching societal norms of the time?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

. If you want a discussion about the religious beliefs around the power dynamics between a higher power (creator) and its creation, why not start a thread on that. It might be interesting to understand why such power dynamics in religion appeal to some people and alienate others.

I agree considering the Bases of Davey and Hillsides arguments are huge themes like Immoral God, God as abusive Cult leader, the subservience of first century Palestine and professor Davey's use of Greece and Rome as a moral reference point #reply 182

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no implied consent in verse 38, let alone explicit consent.

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

I a clear expression of submission to authority, which is the diametric opposite of consent.

But this entails prior commitment with God, a free will act of consent and Mary makes it clear what the transaction has entailed both here and in the magnificat.
Also Mary gives her let it be prior to conception.

[ProfessorDavey]

But this entails prior commitment with God, a free will act of consent and Mary makes it clear what the transaction has entailed both here and in the magnificat.

You really don't understand consent do you Vlad - it is a process, not a one off thing. That Mary may have (or may not have, we don't really know) consented previously to a commitment to god has no bearing on whether she consented in this specific circumstance, unless at that moment she is in a position where she has a genuine choice, free for her to take voluntarily without pressure coercion, a power relationship or submission to authority.

You can consent to join the army - at that point you have a genuine choice between outcomes - either join or not join. But once you have joined and effectively 'signed up' to obey orders you are no longer consenting to those specific orders as you have no genuine choice in the matter as you are required to obey. Someone can, of course, agree no longer to be given the opportunity to consent, through submission to authority but that means that later decision are not on the basis of individual consent.

Also Mary gives her let it be prior to conception.

Irrelevant - god via the angel tells Mary what will happen from a position of the highest authority, Mary submits to authority. That isn't consent - it is miles away from consent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really don't understand consent do you Vlad - it is a process, not a one off thing. That Mary may have (or may not have, we don't really know) consented previously to a commitment to god has no bearing on whether she consented in this specific circumstance, unless at that moment she is in a position where she has a genuine choice, free for her to take voluntarily without pressure coercion, a power relationship or submission to authority.

You can consent to join the army - at that point you have a genuine choice between outcomes - either join or not join. But once you have joined and effectively 'signed up' to obey orders you are no longer consenting to those specific orders as you have no genuine choice in the matter as you are required to obey. Someone can, of course, agree no longer to be given the opportunity to consent, through submission to authority but that means that later decision are not on the basis of individual consent.
Irrelevant - god via the angel tells Mary what will happen from a position of the highest authority, Mary submits to authority. That isn't consent - it is miles away from consent.

There is no evidence of Mary regretting consent at any stage here. Were the firm of Hillside, Davey and Turdpolish to take up a case of coercion Mary would have declined. As I said there are is consent to follow God, Consent to remain with God, Consent to follow God's laws and the let it be so I am not suggesting a one of. I don't see how your partnership has a case considering she is obviously appraised of the plan prior to conception and gives
her let it be and confirms her let it be in the magnificat.

Your argument is based on a view of God(Atheism's Giant Man) and a view of Mary's psychology both of which are eminently debateable rather than the text. In other words a distinctive and again debateable methodology.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There is no evidence of Mary regretting consent at any stage here. Were the firm of Hillside, Davey and Turdpolish to take up a case of coercion Mary would have declined. As I said there are is consent to follow God, Consent to remain with God, Consent to follow God's laws and the let it be so I am not suggesting a one of. I don't see how your partnership has a case considering she is obviously appraised of the plan prior to conception and gives
her let it be and confirms her let it be in the magnificat.

Your argument is based on a view of God(Atheism's Giant Man) and a view of Mary's psychology both of which are eminently debateable rather than the text. In other words a distinctive and again debateable methodology.

You still don’t get it. Our current understanding of consent (actually based on some ancient thinking, as the Prof has said) is at odds with “god’s” act as described in Matthew/Luke. The facts of the story as told mean that Mary could not have given consent as we understand it. She could no more have consented to divine impregnation than you could have consented to handing over your wallet to a mugger in exchange for your life. You’d have both acquiesced, but not consented.

What that means is that either our current position on consent is wrong (and god acted morally perfectly), or our current understanding of consent is right, and god acted immorally. You can have either one, but not both.   

[Maeght]

There is no evidence of Mary regretting consent at any stage here. Were the firm of Hillside, Davey and Turdpolish to take up a case of coercion Mary would have declined. As I said there are is consent to follow God, Consent to remain with God, Consent to follow God's laws and the let it be so I am not suggesting a one of. I don't see how your partnership has a case considering she is obviously appraised of the plan prior to conception and gives
her let it be and confirms her let it be in the magnificat.

Your argument is based on a view of God(Atheism's Giant Man) and a view of Mary's psychology both of which are eminently debateable rather than the text. In other words a distinctive and again debateable methodology.

There is no evidence for the virgin birth outside of the story in the Bible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You still don’t get it. Our current understanding of consent (actually based on some ancient thinking, as the Prof has said) is at odds with “god’s” act as described in Matthew/Luke. The facts of the story as told mean that Mary could not have given consent as we understand it. She could no more have consented to divine impregnation than you could have consented to handing over your wallet to a mugger in exchange for your life. You’d have both acquiesced, but not consented.

What that means is that either our current position on consent is wrong (and god acted morally perfectly), or our current understanding of consent is right, and god acted immorally. You can have either one, but not both.   

No, all we have is your insistence that consent was not given based on a debateable view of God as you understand it, not we.
Mary gave her let it be prior to conception. So your understanding of God is not Mary's understanding of the text, wallets, muggers and live's threatened is just propoganda sleighting all concerned in sly manner.

I am just going from this text and the magnificat.

Moving from there one wonders whether a mugger God would bother with the niceties and inclusive explanation of the scheme as are found in the text

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

It works like this. You believe in the concept of a hierarchy and you believe in a particular form of hierarchy being something you want to join and be part of because you believe the benefits outweigh the costs, You then believe that within that hierarchical oranisation/ movement/ social group/ tribe etc you want to join, specific people or a person - or in the case of religions, a supernatural entity or entities -  has/have the right to tell you what to do. You then decide to go along with doing what they tell you to do...except when you decide you don't want to and then you stop doing what they tell you to do. There may be consequences to your refusal - e.g. you may be socially excluded/ fired from a job/ leave an organisation/ be ex-communicated from a church/ be court-martialled/ / feel liberated/ feel in yourself you have failed in your religious/ moral/ social/ political duty/ be judged by others to have failed  etc etc

You have a remarkably romanticised understanding of servitude. Does it not occur to you that servants actually became servants because they had no choice in the matter – indeed were often born into servitude?
 

Not sure what your point is. Lots of people want to serve various causes. Nuns, priests, religious devotees, or soldiers wanting to serve and sacrifice for abstract concepts such as honour or freedom

Servants? Slaves? Street prostitutes? Latrine cleaners? You actually think these people and more had the opportunities to pick more pleasant occupations but chose the shitty ones instead because they believed in the system? Go give your head a wobble will you?     

What is wrong with Mary's age? In that time and context of when the story was written, her age seems to be the usual age to marry, and we don't actually know her age. Maybe her age constantly changes depending on who is telling the story and the society they are relating the story to and the year the story is being related. Or maybe people don't really care what age she is supposed to be as that is not the point of the story.

She was a minor, and “in that time” had nothing to do with it. The story concerns a morally perfect god remember, so “He” would have paid no mind to contemporary Palestinian morality.     

Power dynamic - what about it? If the story is presented as a story of religious devotion to religiously-inclined people who believe in a higher power that has created everything, then the power of this "higher power" would have to be a key element of the story for the story to be of interest to the people it is aimed at.

Everything about it, as the Professor has explained to you. The critical part of consent of voluntariness is lost when the person feels obligated to follow the orders of an authority figure.   

I think the story is presented by its authors with the intention of being seen as morally good on the basis of the beliefs of its authors and their target audience.

But Christians will tell that the “authors” were actually reporters of facts – thus that “god” acted as he did regardless of their moral precepts. That’s the point. 
     

Nope, I didn't suggest that "behaving in a way you’d find morally wrong is ok when the end justifies the means".

Yes you did. That’s what “god knows best” entails. 

Again it's just your opinion that you showed me what I did. I don't think you showed me what I did because I don't think I deflected. You can think I deflected if you want to though.

I do.

As I said, you can interpret any story how you want. However, demanding that other people interpret stories the same way you do hasn't worked. People will just disagree with your interpretation, as has happened here.

You’re still not getting it. The “authors” reported as fact an all-powerful, universe-creating god impregnating an under-age Palestinian servant. There’s no interpretation needed to understanding the story. The question then becomes whether or not “god” behaved morally well (ie, contrary to our current understanding of consent), of if “god" behaved morally badly (ie, consistent with our current understanding of consent).

Which of the two options do you pick?       

The Bible would present creation by a higher power as a morally good thing, regardless of the hardships that follow on from creation. Presumably because in this religious value system, along with the belief in a higher creator power that created life, is the belief that the higher power has the right to take life away, make life difficult etc etc

Or, to put it another way, the end justified the means. Non-consensual impregnation of an under-age servant girl was fine because the bigger picture was “creation by a higher power as a morally good thing”. Well, it’s a view – though I have no idea why you think a god couldn’t have "created" without then having to act morally badly down the line.     

No idea what you mean by that sentence. There isn't one modern view about what is or isn't morally contemptible for a god to do.

As you know, I was referring broadly to the contemporary Western position on consent.

Dunno - depends who you ask I suppose.

I was asking you. Do you think our current position on consent is morally better than the god’s impregnating act as described in the biblical texts, or vice versa?   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There is no implied consent in verse 38, let alone explicit consent.

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

PD - you do know you can't just assert a moral belief about consent without justifying your position right? 

I a clear expression of submission to authority, which is the diametric opposite of consent.

PD - you do know you can't just assert something without evidence right? Why is voluntary submission to authority the opposite of consent? Submission is a willingness to adhere to the wishes of someone else that you consider has authority over you. Provided no one is forcing you to enter a relationship where you are giving someone authority over you. According to the story, Mary describes herself as a servant of God, presumably due to her beliefs and prayers and acts of worship (all of which are voluntary submission to God's authority) and her "Let it be" is a continuation of her wish to serve God and her agreement to becoming pregnant. That's good enough for me to consider it to be consent in relation to a supernatural entity she believes is her creator.   

Also, what is morally wrong with submission to authority? We submit to authority all the time in this country. No one seeks our consent for every act of submission to authority. People are 'coerced' into paying taxes for example on penalty of fines and imprisonment if they don't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, all we have is your insistence that consent was not given based on a debateable view of God as you understand it, not we.
Mary gave her let it be prior to conception. So your understanding of God is not Mary's understanding of the text, wallets, muggers and live's threatened is just propoganda sleighting all concerned in sly manner.

I am just going from this text and the magnificat.

Moving from there one wonders whether a mugger God would bother with the niceties and inclusive explanation of the scheme as are found in the text

You’re still not getting it. The story is reported as fact. As reportage. As an accurate account of what happened.

If we take that story at face value therefore (however ludicrous) then it tells us that a universe-creating, all-powerful, all-knowing and morally perfect god impregnated an under-age Palestinian servant girl. Those are the “facts” as reported in the story.

The modern Western position on consent is that, no matter what Mary may have said, it was impossible for her to give consent for the reasons Prof Davey has set out. That's why adult men who impregnate under-age teenagers go to pokey, regardless of whether the girls involved acquiesced.   

Still with me? OK then..

So what this means is that either “god” acted morally perfectly (and so our position on consent is wrong), or that our position on consent is correct (and so “god” acted immorally).

Which of these only two option do you pick?