Religions have succeeded

[Outrider]

I didn't co-opt it. The people who translated the Bible did. They are the ones stating in the text that: ...behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."... Matthew 1:18

Go take it up with them for using the word "conceived". Though I suspect you won't have much joy, and they will tell you that they will use language as they see fit, and if you don't like it, that is very much your problem to come to terms with as you see fit.

They're dead, you're here and can choose to parrot or interpret as you see fit. That they misused the phrase doesn't mean that you have to.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Where have I said that I think what is written in text is evidence of a supernatural conception?

'This consent presumably is in relation to sexual acts, not supernatural events that did not involve sexual acts.'

'Reading other parts of your link I note it says that whether there was consent or not is a matter for a jury to decide, so do you have links from the CPS on a jury's verdict on consenting to supernatural pregnancies where no sexual act has occurred?

'Unfortunately, still no closer to getting any BMJ guidance on consent to supernatural pregnancies, but interesting nevertheless.'

If you want to link to some of your lecture notes to your Masters level students on voluntary consent to supernatural pregnancies, feel free, and we can assess for ourselves what the different perspectives are on consenting to supernatural pregnancies by servants of God.'

Your "either or" scenarios are not valid since there is no modern standard regarding consent to supernatural pregnancies that do not involve sexual acts.'

' If you want to provide a link to the contemporary western position on consent and show how it has been applied to a supernatural pregnancy or serving gods, then we can talk about the morality of it.'

'Also, consent in your example relating to UK law is not in relation to supernatural impregnation - it is in relation to a sexual act. There was no sexual act in the story of Mary's pregnancy, hence this is irrelevant.'

You do seem rather obsessed with the distinction between supernatural pregnancies and those initiated by sexual acts. Why would that be unless you considered that supernatural pregnancies were actually a thing. Where exactly are you getting your view that supernatural pregnancies are a thing except from the text which claims them to be in the NT and which is a major topic of the ongoing discussion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

They're dead, you're here and can choose to parrot or interpret as you see fit. That they misused the phrase doesn't mean that you have to.

O.

Funnily enough I am not big on people telling me how to speak or what phrases I can and cannot use.

Like I said, if you don't like me using the phrase i.e. quoting from the translations of religious text, that's very much your problem to deal with as you see fit.

[ProfessorDavey]

You quoted something from the CPS about the issue of consent, and I pointed out that the CPS guidance is that consent should be a matter for a jury to decide.

Ultimately - but of course the CPS take the decision as to whether to prosecute on the basis of likelihood of obtaining a conviction. And how do they take that decision - well by assessing the evidence in the case.

Are you really claiming that if there was evidence in the form of a pregnant woman with the claim that this may have arisen due to non-consensual sex that the evidence in the NT would be sufficient for the CPS to conclude that there was no case to answer and therefore dismiss the case, cos someone 100 years on wrote that the pregnancy was supernatural and/or that there is a claim (with no verification) that the woman said - "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."

Now the CPS may well drop the case because there is basically no credible evidence of anything - however they wouldn't drop the case on the basis that there is credible evidence that either:

1. There was a supernatural pregnancy and the law doesn't apply to supernatural pregnancies or
2. That there was evidence of consent - not mere submission, acquiescence or compliance but actual valid consent

[Outrider]

Funnily enough I am not big on people telling me how to speak or what phrases I can and cannot use.

I'm not telling you that you can't, I'm suggesting that you shouldn't because it's a misuse, and I've explained why. You can choose to correct me, choose to correct your usage, or continue to try to deflect, that's also up to you. People will, of course, draw their own conclusions on your choice.

Like I said, if you don't like me using the phrase i.e. quoting from the translations of religious text, that's very much your problem to deal with as you see fit.

I thought you were wrong before, you've not in any way done anything to amend that opinion, so I'm perfectly happy to keep thinking that you're wrong. Doesn't seem like that's my problem from here...

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

'This consent presumably is in relation to sexual acts, not supernatural events that did not involve sexual acts.'

'Reading other parts of your link I note it says that whether there was consent or not is a matter for a jury to decide, so do you have links from the CPS on a jury's verdict on consenting to supernatural pregnancies where no sexual act has occurred?

'Unfortunately, still no closer to getting any BMJ guidance on consent to supernatural pregnancies, but interesting nevertheless.'

If you want to link to some of your lecture notes to your Masters level students on voluntary consent to supernatural pregnancies, feel free, and we can assess for ourselves what the different perspectives are on consenting to supernatural pregnancies by servants of God.'

Your "either or" scenarios are not valid since there is no modern standard regarding consent to supernatural pregnancies that do not involve sexual acts.'

' If you want to provide a link to the contemporary western position on consent and show how it has been applied to a supernatural pregnancy or serving gods, then we can talk about the morality of it.'

'Also, consent in your example relating to UK law is not in relation to supernatural impregnation - it is in relation to a sexual act. There was no sexual act in the story of Mary's pregnancy, hence this is irrelevant.'

You do seem rather obsessed with the distinction between supernatural pregnancies and those initiated by sexual acts. Why would that be unless you considered that supernatural pregnancies were actually a thing. Where exactly are you getting your view that supernatural pregnancies are a thing except from the text which claims them to be in the NT and which is a major topic of the ongoing discussion.

You seem to be mistaking me analysing the religious text for me claiming it to be evidence for a supernatural pregnancy having actually occurred. I explicitly said that the Bible story is just a story to convey an idea and can't be used as evidence of the absence or presence of consent or supernatural pregnancies. 

Hence I said in #181:

"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?"

You then responded in #183 "he will have to answer for himself, but my reading of his comments is, yes, he does consider that the events actually happened."

And I responded in #196:

"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"

[ProfessorDavey]

I was also pointing out your error in attempting to claim that you could decide what is and isn't consent based on your supposed credentials as some kind of lecturer in the field of research ethics.

Oh dear - yet more snide comments from VG - why do you feel the need to do this, does it make you feel better to try to discredit my credentials in this field.

VG - I don't have supposed credentials, I have actual credentials both in terms of qualifications and also over a quarter of a century of experience in assessing applications on ethics committees, where one of the main elements to be assessed is the process for obtaining valid consent, plus also having taught masters level students medical ethics, with of course a heavy dollop of post-graduate level knowledge of consent.

VG - I am not some kind of lecturer in the field of research ethics - I am a lecturer in the field of research ethics and have been for nigh on 20 years. Indeed I actually just confirmed the dates for course work hand in for the module which will start again in late January - the topic of the coursework, well that would be obtaining valid consent to participate in a research trial.

Sure, you can have an opinion but it's no more valid than anyone else's opinion.

Would you say that if you were discussing medical matters with a qualified and experienced medic or discussing legal matters with a qualified and experienced lawyer?

You really have become Michael Gove, haven't you.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm not telling you that you can't, I'm suggesting that you shouldn't because it's a misuse, and I've explained why. You can choose to correct me, choose to correct your usage, or continue to try to deflect, that's also up to you. People will, of course, draw their own conclusions on your choice.

Sure - you're entitled to your opinions and interpretations of what you think I am doing.

I intend to keep quoting the religious text, because funnily enough your opinions are pretty irrelevant. Other people's conclusions are a matter for them and also not my problem.

I thought you were wrong before, you've not in any way done anything to amend that opinion, so I'm perfectly happy to keep thinking that you're wrong. Doesn't seem like that's my problem from here...

O.

See above.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be mistaking me analysing the religious text for me claiming it to be evidence for a supernatural pregnancy having actually occurred.

So do you accept that there was no supernatural pregnancy then VG. Indeed that there are no supernatural pregnancies.

If so why would you make all sorts of statements that imply an important distinction between supernatural ones and ones from sexual acts - if you don't think the former exist the whole notion of some kind of distinction is completely moot.

[ProfessorDavey]

I explicitly said that the Bible story is just a story to convey an idea and can't be used as evidence of the absence or presence of consent or supernatural pregnancies.

Still leaving the door ajar I see - implying that supernatural pregnancies are a thing, merely arguing that the NT text may or may not provide evidence.

Get off the fence VG - are supernatural pregnancies a thing?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Oh dear - yet more snide comments from VG - why do you feel the need to do this, does it make you feel better to try to discredit my credentials in this field.

I don't need to discredit your credentials because I have not seen any evidence to support your credentials. Consider me a sceptic in the absence of actual evidence. You calling yourself "ProfessorDavey" on a forum doesn't count as evidence. I could change my name to the Dalai Lama but it doesn't make me the Dalai Lama. 

VG - I don't have supposed credentials, I have actual credentials both in terms of qualifications and also over a quarter of a century of experience in assessing applications on ethics committees, where one of the main elements to be assessed is the process for obtaining valid consent, plus also having taught masters level students medical ethics, with of course a heavy dollop of post-graduate level knowledge of consent.

VG - I am not some kind of lecturer in the field of research ethics - I am a lecturer in the field of research ethics and have been for nigh on 20 years. Indeed I actually just confirmed the dates for course work hand in for the module which will start again in late January - the topic of the coursework, well that would be obtaining valid consent to participate in a research trial.

So you keep claiming. My doubt is based on your tendency sometimes when making arguments on here, to jump to conclusions and make assumptions supported by very little evidence. Followed by you stating that conclusions you jump to are clear. I would assume that someone who really was in the research field or an academic would, just through basic experience and competency, be a lot more cautious about jumping to conclusions.   

Would you say that if you were discussing medical matters with a qualified and experienced medic or discussing legal matters with a qualified and experienced lawyer?

You really have become Michael Gove, haven't you.

Yes absolutely - regardless of qualifications and experience, people make mistakes. That's why people tend to get 2nd opinions and medics disagree with each other,  and people also do their own research. You really are very naive if you think qualified, experienced people can't make errors. 

I've personally experienced a GP deciding I had asthma without sending me for any tests, a 2nd qualified and experienced hospital consultant, presented with an x-ray of my lungs, advising me that I didn't have TB, when I did. An NHS hospital lab not finding TB from an analysis of my bronchial wash, and then following me demanding further investigation a 2nd wash of my lungs revealing that I did in fact have TB, which was a logical explanation for my prolonged cough, significant weight-loss, and generally feeling very unwell.   

[Outrider]

Sure - you're entitled to your opinions and interpretations of what you think I am doing.

I intend to keep quoting the religious text, because funnily enough your opinions are pretty irrelevant. Other people's conclusions are a matter for them and also not my problem.

 See above.

OK, so you're wrong, we both know it, and neither of us has an issue with that, is how I see it now.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So do you accept that there was no supernatural pregnancy then VG. Indeed that there are no supernatural pregnancies.

That is a positive claim. Do you have any evidence for your claim?

You don't seem to be very good at this science thing and the process of drawing conclusions.

If so why would you make all sorts of statements that imply an important distinction between supernatural ones and ones from sexual acts - if you don't think the former exist the whole notion of some kind of distinction is completely moot.

I made the distinction, because the Bible story was a story about a supernatural pregnancy, so trying to bring in current laws relating to consent to sexual acts into a Bible story about a miracle was a pointless exercise.

If you're going to drill down into the law, then you should be aware that the law is quite technical and is applied by qualified, experienced people carefully to a specific set of circumstances. Your experience in lecturing in ethics doesn't suddenly make you an expert or qualified in the field of law.   

And this whole discussion seemed to start with the idea that Mary's pregnancy was evidence of misogyny in the Bible.

The whole point of Bible stories is to convey the idea of a hierarchy, with God at the top and angels, humans (men and women) etc seeking to serve God = good, and turning away from God = bad. Being a servant of a higher power is one of the key themes in religion. 

So the idea that Mary considering herself a servant of God by agreeing to become pregnant = misogyny seems a bit strange. Considering yourself a servant of God applies to both men and women and men weren't exactly known for their ability to become pregnant so for the miraculous story to work it needs to be Mary. Getting pregnant thousands of years ago isn't evidence of exploitation - some women then and now actually want to become pregnant, despite the known health risks.     

[ProfessorDavey]

That is a positive claim. Do you have any evidence for your claim?

Nope - it is a question, posed to you.

So why don't you actually answer the question VG.

VG - are supernatural pregnancies a thing?

[ProfessorDavey]

If you're going to drill down into the law, then you should be aware that the law is quite technical and is applied by qualified, experienced people carefully to a specific set of circumstances. Your experience in lecturing in ethics doesn't suddenly make you an expert or qualified in the field of law.

It might if your qualification was in medical ethics and law ... as it is.

But you cannot teach applied medical ethics, without understanding the law. My module isn't some kind of theoretical gish gallop through a whole range of ethical theories, although we do briefly touch on them. Nope it is designed to allow professionals to apply the highest ethical standards to their medical research and to ensure that they remain legal in their practice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I don’t know perhaps whether some damaging event happened to you at a formative age but you seem determined to spit the dummy at anyone who disagrees with you rather than to address their arguments. It’s unedifying, and it serves only to deflect from the arguments themselves (which presumably is your intent).

Rather than respond to you in kind then, let’s see whether instead I can get you to return to the question. The Bible story concerns a morally perfect god impregnating an under-age servant girl.

By modern standards however that act would not be considered morally good for the same reasons that, say, a headmaster impregnating one of his 14-year-old pupils wouldn’t be considered morally good (regardless of whether she acquiesced). That is, valid consent would not have been possible.

So the question you’re being asked to address concerns which moral position you think is correct: God’s or the contemporary Western one?           

[ProfessorDavey]

I made the distinction, because the Bible story was a story about a supernatural pregnancy, so trying to bring in current laws relating to consent to sexual acts into a Bible story about a miracle was a pointless exercise.

Only if you consider supernatural pregnancies to be a thing. A question you keep seeming to duck or skirt around.

If you do not believe supernatural pregnancies to be a thing then any consideration that our laws potentially do not apply to supernatural pregnancies is as pointless as arguing that we need altered burglary laws to deal with situations where someone's property supernaturally disappears from the owner's house and supernaturally reappears in someone else's house.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the idea that Mary considering herself a servant of God by agreeing to become pregnant = misogyny seems a bit strange.

Oh dear VG - you really are getting yourself into an awful twist aren't you. Where have I ever mentioned misogyny?

I think you need to at least get the basics right - by making sure you make a repost to the poster who has been making that point rather than a completely different poster who has never brought up that topic at all.

[ProfessorDavey]

The whole point of Bible stories is to convey the idea of a hierarchy, with God at the top and angels, humans (men and women) etc seeking to serve God = good, and turning away from God = bad. Being a servant of a higher power is one of the key themes in religion.

So was Mary's pregnancy supernatural VG?

Are supernatural pregnancies a thing?

[ProfessorDavey]

You really are very naive if you think qualified, experienced people can't make errors.

Who ever said that - certainly not me.

And medical negligence is, of course, also an element of my module. And we've already discussed this in the context of consent, if you bothered to read what I wrote.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It might if your qualification was in medical ethics and law ... as it is.

But you cannot teach applied medical ethics, without understanding the law. My module isn't some kind of theoretical gish gallop through a whole range of ethical theories, although we do briefly touch on them. Nope it is designed to allow professionals to apply the highest ethical standards to their medical research and to ensure that they remain legal in their practice.

So you claim. But back to the arguments rather than your rather uninteresting supposed credentials.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've personally experienced a GP deciding I had asthma without sending me for any tests, a 2nd qualified and experienced hospital consultant, presented with an x-ray of my lungs, advising me that I didn't have TB, when I did. An NHS hospital lab not finding TB from an analysis of my bronchial wash, and then following me demanding further investigation a 2nd wash of my lungs revealing that I did in fact have TB, which was a logical explanation for my prolonged cough, significant weight-loss, and generally feeling very unwell.

So you'd clearly be better off trusting your ongoing medical care to Jim, the landlord of your local or perhaps the woman who works on the tills in Tesco.

That sometimes highly qualified people make mistakes doesn't mean that you should give equal credence to experts practicing within their field of expertise and some chap down the road with neither training nor experience. You really are Michael Gove.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Nope - it is a question, posed to you.

So why don't you actually answer the question VG.

VG - are supernatural pregnancies a thing?

Nope it's a positive claim. You said "So do you accept that there was no supernatural pregnancy then VG. Indeed that there are no supernatural pregnancies."

I can't accept that there was/ are no supernatural pregnancy until someone proves they did not/ cannot take place. There is no method for proving or disproving supernatural events. Therefore, I can only say what I believe or do not believe. 

[ProfessorDavey]

So you claim. But back to the arguments rather than your rather uninteresting supposed credentials.

You really can't help yourself can you VG. It is almost like a pathological trait.

Do you know what VG - sometimes you might learn something by actually considering what people who might have specific training, qualifications and experience in a topic have to say on that particular topic, rather than thinking that somehow a quick bit of googling makes you equally knowledgable.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope it's a positive claim. You said "So do you accept that there was no supernatural pregnancy then VG. Indeed that there are no supernatural pregnancies."

Nope they are questions VG - sue me for failing to include a question mark.

I can't accept that there was/ are no supernatural pregnancy until someone proves they did not/ cannot take place. There is no method for proving or disproving supernatural events. Therefore, I can only say what I believe or do not believe.

And what do you believe VG - and what evidence do you use to support your belief.

Note that not believing in something does not provide any onus on that non-believer to provide evidence for that lack of belief. But if you believe in something that is a positive claim and therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence in support of that belief.

And for the record - I do not believe that supernatural pregnancies are a thing on the basis that I have seen no credible evidence to support me believing that they exist. Exactly the same as my lack of belief in the existence of god.