Religions have succeeded

[ProfessorDavey]

Between you and Davey do we have two male, pale? atheist and stale.one superannuated,guys dictating what a woman should have done with her body. That would be a turn up.

And there was me thinking that my main argument was about the critical importance of valid consent. You know the concept where an individual gets to choose what happens to them, free from pressure from others.

In this completely hypothetical situation I am smack on the side of Mary being able to freely choose between becoming pregnant or not becoming pregnant without any pressure trying to push her one way or the other.

But in our hypothetical situation we have no evidence to support the notion that there was ever a choice, and plenty of support for the argument that the voluntariness threshold for valid consent was missed by a mile. And we won't even get into the issue of whether she even had capacity to consent in the first place.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And your positive assertion that Mary was an underage
Servant girl is proved how Hillside?

Oh dear. I make no such positive assertion (in my view it's more likely all a myth in any case). The only "positive assertion" I do make though is that that's what the Bible story says.

Try to remember the difference between statements about the real world and statements about the Bible's descriptions of the real world.

Between you and Davey do we have two male, pale? atheist and stale.one superannuated,guys dictating what a woman should have done with her body. That would be a turn up.

No-one has dictated anything, and that "woman" was an underage servant girl (according to the story) in a epically asymmetric power relationship (according to the story). By modern Western standards therefore valid consent (in the story) would have been impossible no matter what the girl's words or actions, yet (in the story) a morally perfect god impregnated her nonetheless.

So (and with no expectation of you ever answering this), in the story which in your opinion is morally better: God's act or the modern Western position about God's act?       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh dear. I make no such positive assertion (in my view it's more likely all a myth in any case). The only "positive assertion" I do make though is that that's what the Bible story says.

Try to remember the difference between statements about the real world and statements about the Bible's descriptions of the real world.

No-one has dictated anything, and that "woman" was an underage servant girl (according to the story) in a epically asymmetric power relationship (according to the story). By modern Western standards therefore valid consent (in the story) would have been impossible no matter what the girl's words or actions, yet (in the story) a morally perfect god impregnated her nonetheless.

So (and with no expectation of you ever answering this), in the story which in your opinion is morally better: God's act or the modern Western position about God's act?       

The Bible doesn't mention Mary's age Hillside.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Bible doesn't mention Mary's age Hillside.

True, but the bible does clearly state that Mary considered herself to be a servant - specifically submitting herself to the authority of god.

But on age - the bible doesn't dictate this, but the bible does indicate that Mary was soon to be married and we know from other historical sources that the typical age for girl's being married in Jewish society of the time was typically 13 or 14, potentially as young as 12.

While we don't have direct evidence from the bible, we also have nothing to contradict the norm of the time. So why would we assume something outside of the norm of the day.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The Bible doesn't mention Mary's age Hillside.

No, but other sources suggest that 12-16 would be about right. Here for example:

“In this passage of Scripture, we are not told Mary’s age, yet we are told she was a virgin and was pledged to be married to Joseph. During this time in history, Jewish girls would have been betrothed (engaged) to their husbands as early as the age of 12-years-old. Scholars believe Mary would have been somewhere between 12-16 years old when she had Jesus (Ibid.).”

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/holidays/do-we-know-how-old-mary-was-when-she-had-jesus.html

You’re also changing horses mid-stream here from “she consented” to “ok, she couldn’t have consented but maybe she was older than we thought…”. You’re clutching straws, and in any case you still have the massively differential power dynamic to deal with.

So we have a story about a morally perfect god impregnating an underage Palestinian serving girl on a necessarily non-consensual basis, but we also have modern Western sensibilities that consider this behaviour to be morally reprehensible.

Which one do you think is morally better?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

True, but the bible does clearly state that Mary considered herself to be a servant

So you do not have a case then. Christians would ideally place themselves as servants of God but are probably better known in employment terms as nurses, politicians, refuse collectors etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, but other sources suggest that 12-16 would be about right. Here for example:

“In this passage of Scripture, we are not told Mary’s age, yet we are told she was a virgin and was pledged to be married to Joseph. During this time in history, Jewish girls would have been betrothed (engaged) to their husbands as early as the age of 12-years-old. Scholars believe Mary would have been somewhere between 12-16 years old when she had Jesus (Ibid.).”

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/holidays/do-we-know-how-old-mary-was-when-she-had-jesus.html

You’re also changing horses mid-stream here from “she consented” to “ok, she couldn’t have consented but maybe she was older than we thought…”. You’re clutching straws, and in any case you still have the massively differential power dynamic to deal with.

So we have a story about a morally perfect god impregnating an underage Palestinian serving girl on a necessarily non-consensual basis, but we also have modern Western sensibilities that consider this behaviour to be morally reprehensible.

Which one do you think is morally better?   

other sources are not the Bible. And you claimed the Bible demonstrated minority.
As far as I’m aware no conviction in law is based on what is typical and the only documentary witness here is the bible. The hint of Mary’s possible age is not that she is betrothed but that she has a cousin Elizabeth who is pregnant beyond expected childbearing years and I would also add Mary’s spiritual and intellectual grasp all put her above mid teens in age. But since no age is given in the text my guess just remains excellent deduction.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you do not have a case then. Christians would ideally place themselves as servants of God but are probably better known in employment terms as nurses, politicians, refuse collectors etc.

Complete non-sense.

We have no idea what 'job' Mary had - probably none, again from the historical understanding of the society of the time. But that is entirely irrelevant.

The point is that on the basis of the she claims to be a servant of god and presumably therefore to submit to god's authority - and, again on the basis of the text, it is god via an angel who tells Mary that she will become pregnant. There is nothing in the text to presume that god was offering a choice.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

Or you're wrong, we both know it, is how I see it.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conceive
conceived; conceiving
transitive verb

1
a
: to become pregnant with (young)
conceive a child

Translated from the Greek

Matthew 1:20 V-APP-NNS
GRK: ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός
NAS: for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy
KJV: for that which is conceived in
INT: in her having been conceived from [the] Spirit

I read that some scholars view the capitalisng of holy spirit to the Holy Spirit happened in later years.

I would also add that there are many different interpretations of the meaning of words in religious text, and different stances taken by readers on whether words should be read literally or metaphorically.

Language in stories have many meanings so trying to insist that your reading of the word and your usage in language is the only correct way just makes you look foolish.

[ProfessorDavey]

The hint of Mary’s possible age is not that she is betrothed but that she has a cousin Elizabeth who is pregnant beyond expected childbearing years ...

Blimey - you really are clutching at straws here Vlad. Firstly you will no doubt be aware that 'cousin' is simply one translation - others use 'relative', so there is no solid evidence that Elizabeth was actually Mary's cousin.

But even if she was, it is perfectly possible for cousins to have 25 or more years difference between them, particularly in a world where women had a lot of children, starting very young. And, of course if 'cousin' also covers second cousin, cousin first removed etc (all of which would be covered by the generic term cousin) then even greater age differences are entirely possible.

[ProfessorDavey]

... and I would also add Mary’s spiritual and intellectual grasp all put her above mid teens in age.

And what would you base that on - have you interviewed Mary to determine her intellectual maturity.

You do realise that there is no credible evidence that Mary actually said the words in the NT text - these are words attributed to her by people writing nigh on 100 years later. And how exactly would her exact words have been recorded - from the text the only person present at the time was Mary, and I think she was occupied with being terrified. Rather unlikely, don't you think that she'd have had the presence of mind to write down the actual words spoken. Or perhaps you think she had a 1stC dictaphone.

And before you claim that the angel would have whipped out his notebook, what about the claimed words in the encounter between Mary and Elizabeth - who exactly was recording those words. The reality is that what we have in the NT are words attributed to individuals, there is no credible evidence that they ever actually spoke them.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Because, as is your way, you essay a ludicrous position and then spit the dummy when it’s challenged. Clearly more bosses would rather be the bosses than their servants, and more servants would rather be their bosses than the servants too. Your “where’s your evidence?” for the bleeding obvious is just time wasting, presumably because it allows you to deflect from the actual question. 

Your way is to make assertions on here without supporting evidence, which is why your assertions are easily dismissed, and then you spit the dummy when challenged.

Not a ludicrous position at all. Not everyone wants to be a boss, some people prefer to be workers.

By the way, servants of God would not rather be bosses.

You’re embarrassing yourself now. That’s called the “no you are” response beloved of small children through the ages.

When you behave like a small child with some of the comments you make, I don't waste my time thinking of a response. I just parrot your childish response back to you.

The question is clear enough. In the example given, which position do you think is morally better:

A. God’s?

B. Modern Western Society’s?

I’ve made it as simple as I can for you – all you need do to answer that is to reply either A or B.

I already responded to this - see #237 (and also #205,#228 if you want to go back further). If you don't like these responses, try not to spit the dummy again. 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)

I suggest you go and read it and respond to the points made rather than this childish sticking your fingers in your ears and asking the same question over and over again,

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Indeed - but that is in the context of considering best interests where someone else (e.g. parents) authorise a procedure on behalf of a child who doesn't have the capacity to consent. And the significance of the procedure will also be critical - so see the difference between circumcision and FGM.

But this isn't really about consent as in this context there is no consent, rather there is authorisation on the basis of best interests.

But if the child does have the capacity to consent, clearly the decision is theirs to make and consent requires the ability to make that decision as a genuine choice free from undue pressure or coercion. Hence the point about ensuring the decision is the child's independent choice.

So while the courts may be comfortable with a decision to circumcise authorised by parents for a child unable to consent (e.g. a baby) they may also consider that consent may not be valid for an older child who has capacity if there is undue parental or societal pressure to make a choice in one direction.

So based on the BMA guidance, the courts may therefore consider an older child's consent to circumcision to be valid so long as the courts think that there has been no undue parental pressure and it is the child's own choice. So a child is capable of making their own choice under current thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Complete non-sense.

We have no idea what 'job' Mary had - probably none, again from the historical understanding of the society of the time. But that is entirely irrelevant.

The point is that on the basis of the she claims to be a servant of god and presumably therefore to submit to god's authority - and, again on the basis of the text, it is god via an angel who tells Mary that she will become pregnant. There is nothing in the text to presume that god was offering a choice.

No, you don’t have a case. There is no finding of typically criminal in law.
You may accuse me of clutching at straws but yours of sexual impropriety, minority, servant girl are burned away. You have no case since you are unsure of what misdemenour to claim here. And as for claiming some western standard of morality, there is no western standard of morality here given variable ages of minority.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Finally - so there we have it folks.

VG accepts that supernatural births are a thing.

Do you routinely falsify your research too PD? If indeed you do any research or are in fact a professor.

Judging by this quote mining, I suspect the popular view might be that you are not really a professor and certainly not in any field of ethics. 

Next question - why do you accept this?

Given that you've rejected magic storks due to lack of evidence.

I did not accept magic storks due to lack of evidence and lack of personal experience. Did you actually read my reply #284 in response to to your question about storks?

If you did, you're not very good and reading for comprehension and then making an argument based on what has been posted to you. Not sure why you expect me to believe you are a professor based on the evidence of your posts on here. Surely a real professor would have been trained to be more precise and to not jump to wrong conclusions.

In order to be consistent VG surely you'd need to argue that the difference between magic storks and supernatural pregnancies would be evidence. So where is your evidence - surely you must have this or you are being completely inconsistent in the difference in argument between magic storks and supernatural pregnancies.

I suggest you read what I wrote in #284 and have another go at forming a suitable response. If you want I can give you some lessons on how to go about comprehending what is written and forming responses based on the words actually written in the post. It might help you with your marking for your "students".

[ProfessorDavey]

So based on the BMA guidance, the courts may therefore consider an older child's consent to circumcision to be valid so long as the courts think that there has been no undue parental pressure and it is the child's own choice.

Yes - but why are you focussing on circumcision which is a rather unusual medical procedure as in most cases there is no medical reason for it to happen, in other words is non therapeutic. There are also oddities in relation to parental 'consent' or authorisation. In most cases the agreement from one person with parental responsibility is sufficient for authorising a medical procedure. Non therapeutic circumcision requires authorisation from both parents. So in effect each parent has a veto. The only other circumstance where consent is required from both parents is within the world of assisted reproduction where both parents are required to consent to the generation of embryos by IVF and must both consent to future use, storage etc.

So a child is capable of making their own choice under current thinking.

It is a little bit more complicated as you need to consider both the ethical principles of consent and the legal position.

So if a child has capacity to consent (so-called Gillick competent), is provided with sufficient and adequate information and is permitted to make a choice free from undue pressure etc, then that is valid consent. However that doesn't mean that legally that child is permitted by law to engage in certain activities even if all the conditions for valid consent are met.

So perhaps the most obvious example is sex - while it is perfectly possible, under the ethical principles for people aged under 16 to provide valid consent, if the conditions above are met, this is still unlawful.

Other examples are blood donation (age 17) and tattoos (age 18).

Of course all of those things would be unlawful without consent at any age.

So you need to look at both the ethics of consent and the law to determine whether something is actually lawful.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Complete non-sense.

We have no idea what 'job' Mary had - probably none, again from the historical understanding of the society of the time. But that is entirely irrelevant.

The point is that on the basis of the she claims to be a servant of god and presumably therefore to submit to god's authority - and, again on the basis of the text, it is god via an angel who tells Mary that she will become pregnant. There is nothing in the text to presume that god was offering a choice.

Well that's rubbish. Many theists would use such language and describe themselves as servants of God - and they also have the freedom to not obey God despite describing themselves as servants of God. It's part of the religious language and thinking and widely accepted by many theists that we often fail to obey God.

The reason we can fail to obey is because we have a choice whether to obey or not.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you routinely falsify your research too PD? If indeed you do any research or are in fact a professor.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I read your response:

Yes but it's so much more fun to leave you hanging as it seems to matter to you....

As an answer to my oft repeated question, specifically your response was to this:

So do you accept that supernatural pregnancies are a thing VG?

Simply yes/no is all that is needed.

You chose to add to the simple yes/no, but that seemed pretty superfluous to your answer to the question.

If I have got this wrong and 'yes' wasn't an answer to my question, I apologise, but I need to ask you again whether you accept that supernatural pregnancies are a thing VG?

[ProfessorDavey]

Well that's rubbish. Many theists would use such language and describe themselves as servants of God - and they also have the freedom to not obey God despite describing themselves as servants of God. It's part of the religious language and thinking and widely accepted by many theists that we often fail to obey God.

The reason we can fail to obey is because we have a choice whether to obey or not.   

Where exactly in the text is there evidence that god via the angel is giving Mary a choice in the matter, rather than just informing her what will happen to her. I cannot see any evidence that a choice is being offered.

[ProfessorDavey]

I did not accept magic storks due to lack of evidence and lack of personal experience.

Then why do you accept supernatural pregnancies then VG, assuming that your earlier 'yes' was a response to:

So do you accept that supernatural pregnancies are a thing VG?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes - but why are you focussing on circumcision which is a rather unusual medical procedure as in most cases there is no medical reason for it to happen, in other words is non therapeutic.

I am looking at circumcision as that is a procedure that we have guidance on in relation to a child's capacity to consent to what could be considered as Actual Bodily Harm if there was no valid consent. It is a most likely permanent, irreversible procedure that a child is considered capable of consenting to. 

It is a little bit more complicated as you need to consider both the ethical principles of consent and the legal position.

So if a child has capacity to consent (so-called Gillick competent), is provided with sufficient and adequate information and is permitted to make a choice free from undue pressure etc, then that is valid consent. However that doesn't mean that legally that child is permitted by law to engage in certain activities even if all the conditions for valid consent are met.

So perhaps the most obvious example is sex - while it is perfectly possible, under the ethical principles for people aged under 16 to provide valid consent, if the conditions above are met, this is still unlawful.

Ok - so if the age of consent is lowered by Parliament say in 2025 to 14, do you hold the view that it becomes morally right to have sex at 14 but is morally wrong now? Do you think what we as a society thinks is morally right or wrong keeps changing depending on what point in history you pick?   

Other examples are blood donation (age 17) and tattoos (age 18).

Of course all of those things would be unlawful without consent at any age.

So you need to look at both the ethics of consent and the law to determine whether something is actually lawful.

Do you consider what is lawful to be the same as what is morally right at any given time?

[ProfessorDavey]

I did not accept magic storks due to lack of evidence and lack of personal experience. Did you actually read my reply #284 in response to to your question about storks?

If you did, you're not very good and reading for comprehension and then making an argument based on what has been posted to you. Not sure why you expect me to believe you are a professor based on the evidence of your posts on here. Surely a real professor would have been trained to be more precise and to not jump to wrong conclusions.

Do keep up VG - I read and agree with your response on magic storks.

My question is given you approach to determining whether you accept magic storks, why you accept that supernatural pregnancies are a thing (assuming your 'yes' was finally an answer to my oft asked question).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Where exactly in the text is there evidence that god via the angel is giving Mary a choice in the matter, rather than just informing her what will happen to her. I cannot see any evidence that a choice is being offered.

Maybe it wasn't written that way because the authors, who were presumably theists, felt it unnecessary to spell out that theists have a choice as to whether to obey God or not. They might have taken it for granted that having a choice was something everyone understood.

Given it is a Bible story, I doubt the people who wrote it chose their words on the expectation that it would be picked over as a witness statement to defend against accusations of the "crime" of non-consensual supernatural pregnancy. They probably chose their words based on what would invoke feelings of reverence / devotion / piety/ love etc etc

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you routinely falsify your research too PD?

No

If indeed you do any research

Yes I do - I've published well over 100 primary research papers over my career - the most recent was published last week.

or are in fact a professor.

Indeed I am.

I suspect the popular view

Popular with who, VG.

... might be that you are not really a professor

Wrong.

and certainly not in any field of ethics.

As I've mentioned previously this isn't my primary research field, although I have published peer-reviewed articles in this field. My main professional engagement in this field is professional practice as member, and in one case, chair of research ethics committees, supporting the development of my university's policies and practice in research ethics and also teaching to masters level students.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I read your response:

Yes but it's so much more fun to leave you hanging as it seems to matter to you....

As an answer to my oft repeated question, specifically your response was to this:

So do you accept that supernatural pregnancies are a thing VG?

Simply yes/no is all that is needed.

You chose to add to the simple yes/no, but that seemed pretty superfluous to your answer to the question.

If I have got this wrong and 'yes' wasn't an answer to my question, I apologise, but I need to ask you again whether you accept that supernatural pregnancies are a thing VG?

The "Yes" was not in answer to your question about my beliefs about supernatural pregnancies. Apology accepted.

I assumed it was obvious that I wasn't answering "yes" to your question about my beliefs, given I also added in my response, which you edited out when quote-mining that  "I'll let you know my beliefs when I feel in the mood to do so. Which is probably when you stop demanding that I tell you what my beliefs are."

But I guess either it wasn't obvious to you or you skimmed over it and did not comprehend it.