Religions have succeeded

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Or maybe it was written that way because the authors were recanting a story in which god, via an angel tells Mary what will happen to her, rather than recanting a story in which Mary is offered a choice in the matter.

You can attempt all kinds of contortions to try to get around this, but the uncomfortable fact is that the text, as written, provides no evidence that Mary is being offered a choice rather than being told what will happen to her.

[Outrider]

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.

I don't see any references to magic in that...

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

This is what you said after my yes/no.

I'm struggling to see how my choosing not to include the bit in bold constitutes quote mining. I took this that you were finally answering my yes/no question in the affirmative. But then indicating that you've been playing a merry little game of refusing to answer but had finally succumbed.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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).

I have not said that I accept that supernatural pregnancies are a thing. I'll let you know in due course what my belief is. It hasn't come up as something of importance to me as the birth of Jesus has no relevance to my day to day life. The historical stuff, which can neither be proved or disproved, is not something I spend a lot of time pondering on.

As I have often mentioned on here , some Muslims read the Quran and take the words and stories literally and some Muslims read the Quran and take the words and stories metaphorically or as an illustration of some point being made or a lesson being taught, and some do both - so they take some parts literally and some parts metaphorically.

You can see the wide range of views for example on this thread: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quran-literal-or-metaphoric.139444/

 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Popular with who, VG.

No idea - you said in #295 "Other opinions are available and may well be rather more popular VG.". Who did you mean when you mentioned "popular"?

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.

Good for you. You have fun with that. Just remember not to jump to conclusions that aren't supported by the available evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have not said that I accept that supernatural pregnancies are a thing.

Why so coy VG - you are usually so opinionated.

I'll let you know in due course what my belief is.

Why not now, surely you have an opinion given that we have been discussing it on this thread for a while and it was, of course you, who numerous times kept implying that the law somehow doesn't apply to supernatural pregnancies. Very weird comments unless you had an opinion on whether supernatural pregnancies are a thing.

It hasn't come up as something of importance to me as the birth of Jesus has no relevance to my day to day life. The historical stuff, which can neither be proved or disproved, is not something I spend a lot of time pondering on.

Yes you seem to consider this to be rather important for the CPS, given all your quotes on the matter.

[ProfessorDavey]

No idea - you said in #295 "Other opinions are available and may well be rather more popular VG.". Who did you mean when you mentioned "popular"?

With both other posters here and those that know me in the real world. Who were you considering VG.

Good for you. You have fun with that.

Yes - it is incredibly interesting at times. Other applications are deeply dull and sometimes really bad.

Just remember not to jump to conclusions that aren't supported by the available evidence.

I don't VG - just asserting something doesn't make it true VG. As a trained scientist (as well as a trained ethicist and with a modicum of legal training) my whole world is about using evidence in support of conclusions. How about you VG?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Or maybe it was written that way because the authors were recanting a story in which god, via an angel tells Mary what will happen to her, rather than recanting a story in which Mary is offered a choice in the matter.

You can attempt all kinds of contortions to try to get around this, but the uncomfortable fact is that the text, as written, provides no evidence that Mary is being offered a choice rather than being told what will happen to her.

Or maybe 2 different people with 2 different perspectives because of their nature/ nurture can read the same text and interpret it in 2 different ways and form different understandings of what took place in the story. 

Not exactly a novel idea that this could lead to many different interpretations of information and words presented in legal, political, philosophical, social and religious discourse. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't see any references to magic in that...

O.

No idea what your point is. References to magic in what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

other sources are not the Bible. And you claimed the Bible demonstrated minority.

No, I said the Bible story was about the impregnation of an underage servant girl in a colossally asymmetric power relationship who was told what would happen rather than asked whether she consented. The “underage” part of that comes from commentaries and interpretations from religious sites, while the asymmetric power dynamic part is baked in to the story itself. 
 

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.

It’s not a “witness” it’s an account long after the event with all the problems of veracity that implies, but in any case we’re not talking about a conviction in law here. No theistic sites that I’m aware of dispute that by contemporary standards in the story Mary was underage, and unless you have some better records to show them to be wrong there’s no particular reason to question that.     

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…

My wife became an Aunt at the age of six. So?

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

You can make all the guesses you like about that, but it’s irrelevant. In my example of a headmaster impregnating one of his pupils, would “spiritual and intellectual grasp all put her above mid teens in age” be an acceptable defence (even if the pupil was the one who claimed it) in your opinion? Why not?   

But since no age is given in the text my guess just remains excellent deduction.

Unqualified guessing that flies in the face of theistic scholarship isn’t “excellent deduction” – it’s just unqualified guessing that flies in the face of theistic scholarship

So anyway (and once again):

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?   

Why so coy?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This is what you said after my yes/no.

I'm struggling to see how my choosing not to include the bit in bold constitutes quote mining. I took this that you were finally answering my yes/no question in the affirmative. But then indicating that you've been playing a merry little game of refusing to answer but had finally succumbed.

I also wrote, which you did not include "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."

That changes the meaning of my "yes" so you interpreted it differently from how I intended it. Oh look a real time example of how different people can interpret the same words differently.

[ProfessorDavey]

I also wrote, which you did not include "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."

Which appeared after some rather bemusing comments on being married, which I responded to.

That changes the meaning of my "yes" so you interpreted it differently from how I intended it. Oh look a real time example of how different people can interpret the same words differently.

So you say - but it is hardly clear if you say yes straight after a simple yes/no question and then make some later comment which you claim to imply that you actually weren't answering my question after some strange stuff about marriage.

Perhaps you need to be a little clearer in your communication VG.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Why so coy VG - you are usually so opinionated.

Given, there are lots of posts I do not respond to or have an opinion on, once again you seem to have jumped to an erroneous conclusion.

Why not now, surely you have an opinion given that we have been discussing it on this thread for a while and it was, of course you, who numerous times kept implying that the law somehow doesn't apply to supernatural pregnancies. Very weird comments unless you had an opinion on whether supernatural pregnancies are a thing.

Nope - I was just challenging the arguments made by you about the story of a supernatural pregnancy. I thought you were jumping to conclusions about lack of consent that weren't supported by the text, as it's a Bible story about a miracle.

Supernatural pregnancies are not something I have any personal experience of and it's irrelevant to me whether supernatural pregnancies are a thing or not. The concept does not affect my life so I have not formed an opinion as from my perspective it's unknowable. My brief thoughts on the matter are that religious stories talk about creation e.g. creation of Adam without fertilisation and pregnancies so it isn't really a novel idea in religions that people do not exist and then do exist without reference to processes identified by science.   

Yes you seem to consider this to be rather important for the CPS, given all your quotes on the matter.

I was challenging your arguments, as you were bringing in the legal concept of consent into the argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

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.

Stop it now – you’re embarrassing yourself. The majority of people would also prefer a nice slice of apple pie to a punch on the nose. Would you demand “evidence” for that statement of the bleeding obvious too? Why not? 

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

And your evidence for that claim would be…? etc etc. See, it’s easy isn’t it just to try to derail by demanding evidence for uncontroversial statements. Assuming that people who think themselves to be servants of their various gods wouldn't rather be those gods, all that statement does is to reinforce the unequal power dynamic point that nullifies the possibility of valid consent. 

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.

Pointing out your unpleasant behaviour here isn’t behaving like a small child (it’s the behaviour itself that does that) but it’s up to you I guess. 

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)

Feeling better now? OK then – you may have “responded” in the sense that deflections are responses, but you haven’t answered it. By all means if you change your mind though have a go at it:

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 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,

I have read it, why is why I know you were deflecting. Look, to be frank when your trademark nastiness is all you have then I don’t really much care to engage with it. If it make you feel good about yourself to behave this way, then so be it. If by some chance you do decide to give your head a wobble and to try to address the question you’ve actually been asked though then go right ahead.     

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

But that applies to countless medical procedures and we have guidance on those too. The reason why I think circumcision isn't a great example to use for discussion on valid consent and/or authorisation by parents under best interests is that it is a very unusual case and there are considerations that aren't usually part of the standard approach to consent/authorisation. As I've pointed out, almost exclusively circumcision requires both parents agree - this in the case normally.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which appeared after some rather bemusing comments on being married, which I responded to.

It was not a serious comment and I was not expecting a response. I was just making the point that experience of relationships must have led you to the observation that repeatedly demanding something from someone is very unlikely to get you the result you are after.

So you say - but it is hardly clear if you say yes straight after a simple yes/no question and then make some later comment which you claim to imply that you actually weren't answering my question after some strange stuff about marriage.

Perhaps you need to be a little clearer in your communication VG.

Perhaps. Given, language and communication are imperfect mechanisms for exchanging views it is not surprising that the meanings an author intends by the words that they use are interpreted or understood differently by someone else.

[Outrider]

No idea what your point is. References to magic in what?

Your evidence that your usage is correct is to refer to a dictionary definition of 'conception' as though that's going to accommodate the poetic use of the term in a fairy story...

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

Slide number 3 of my introduction to medical ethics lecture.

Ethical and Legal

Not the same
Things may be considered to be ethically wrong but not illegal
        e.g. lying, discourtesy
Laws, rules and regulations often provide a minimum standard of behaviour
Laws should be tightly defined to allow proper enforcement -

Clearly what we broadly consider to be ethical/unethical should align with what is considered lawful/unlawful, but this isn't always the case. On the one hard the law often provides a minimum expected standard of behaviour, but we might consider that which is ethical to have a higher hurdle. So, as an example, someone might make snide, insulting and untrue comments about someone else (just plucking out of the air for one moment, perhaps about a person's professional expertise and conduct) and while this might be rather unethical behaviour the law wouldn't be interested unless it reached the threshold for libel.

But there is also the issue of how the law operates in practice - so in the example you use the law sets some basic lines in the sand on age around a range of procedures and activities. In doing so it therefore absents itself from the much more complex issue of determining whether there is valid consent or not. Largely the law is disinterested in valid consent for sex under the age of 16, because it is unlawful. Over the age of 16 the issue of valid consent is paramount, but as we see with the woeful prosecution rates for rape cases, can be very tricky to actually assess according to the thresholds of proof the law requires.

Of course, in a more practical sense the law tends to turn a blind eye to teenagers under 16 having consensual sex, but the law does provide a useful approach to asymmetric relationships involving much older person and an under 16 where there may be a power relationship. That under the age of 16 sex is unlawful means that the law doesn't have to go into the complexities of whether or not there was valid consent, it is unlawful regardless.

So to answer your question - changing the age of consent is a matter for the law, it isn't an ethical issue and it wouldn't change my opinion on whether a particular activity was ethical or not.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Stop it now – you’re embarrassing yourself. The majority of people would also prefer a nice slice of apple pie to a punch on the nose. Would you demand “evidence” for that statement of the bleeding obvious too? Why not?

I suggest you stop now BHS - you’re embarrassing yourself. There is no comparison between a punch on the nose and working for someone else.

And your evidence for that claim would be…? etc etc. See, it’s easy isn’t it just to try to derail by demanding evidence for uncontroversial statements. Assuming that people who think themselves to be servants of their various gods wouldn't rather be those gods, all that statement does is to reinforce the unequal power dynamic point that nullifies the possibility of valid consent.

My evidence would be that if you ask some of the theists on here if they want to be servants of God or a god themselves, and if they say no they do not want to be God, then you have some evidence that there are theists who do not want to be gods.

I'll start - I would rather be a servant of God than a God. 

Nope - calling yourself a servant of God doesn't nullify the possibility of valid consent - as calling yourself a servant of God still means theists make decisions many times to not obey what they think are God's wishes.

Pointing out your unpleasant behaviour here isn’t behaving like a small child (it’s the behaviour itself that does that) but it’s up to you I guess.

If you find my behaviour unpleasant that's up to you. No one is forcing you to participate. If you want to post your opinion about my behaviour that's fine too. No one is forcing me to read it or take any notice of it. Likewise in pointing out your unpleasant behaviour on here. It's up to you too, if you decide to continue it. 

Feeling better now? OK then – you may have “responded” in the sense that deflections are responses, but you haven’t answered it. By all means if you change your mind though have a go at it:

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.

If you had read the response I gave you, you would know that it said those are not the only 2 choices and why that is the case. You also did not answer the question about which modern western society position - there are so many different positions in modern western society. Are you talking about a particular country's legal position? If so, which country's, given there are so many different ages of consent in the Western world. 

I have read it, why is why I know you were deflecting. Look, to be frank when your trademark nastiness is all you have then I don’t really much care to engage with it. If it make you feel good about yourself to behave this way, then so be it. If by some chance you do decide to give your head a wobble and to try to address the question you’ve actually been asked though then go right ahead.   

If your opinion is that I am nasty, feel free to not engage. Your choice. I have addressed the question asked - you just don't like the answer.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

With both other posters here and those that know me in the real world. Who were you considering VG.
Yes - it is incredibly interesting at times. Other applications are deeply dull and sometimes really bad.
I don't VG - just asserting something doesn't make it true VG. As a trained scientist (as well as a trained ethicist and with a modicum of legal training) my whole world is about using evidence in support of conclusions. How about you VG?

I was considering whoever you were considering - it was in response to your post.

I can't say that I am invested in my popularity on the internet so I wouldn't think to comment on whether I am popular amongst posters. I tend to advise young people I encounter, who seem caught up with social media, that I think it is not helpful to a person's mental health to worry about whether some strangers like you, given they do not really know your life and you do not know theirs and everyone only sees glimpses of information based on what is posted on the internet and not the reality of other aspects of each other's lives.

People are not always what they seem or what you interpret from their online posts. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Slide number 3 of my introduction to medical ethics lecture.

Ethical and Legal

Not the same
Things may be considered to be ethically wrong but not illegal
        e.g. lying, discourtesy
Laws, rules and regulations often provide a minimum standard of behaviour
Laws should be tightly defined to allow proper enforcement -

Clearly what we broadly consider to be ethical/unethical should align with what is considered lawful/unlawful, but this isn't always the case. On the one hard the law often provides a minimum expected standard of behaviour, but we might consider that which is ethical to have a higher hurdle. So, as an example, someone might make snide, insulting and untrue comments about someone else (just plucking out of the air for one moment, perhaps about a person's professional expertise and conduct) and while this might be rather unethical behaviour the law wouldn't be interested unless it reached the threshold for libel.

That's a great example 

Would you say someone trying to use their professional credentials to support their argument on an anonymous online forum, when there is no way of posters being able to verify whether those credentials are in fact real, is rather unethical?

But there is also the issue of how the law operates in practice - so in the example you use the law sets some basic lines in the sand on age around a range of procedures and activities. In doing so it therefore absents itself from the much more complex issue of determining whether there is valid consent or not. Largely the law is disinterested in valid consent for sex under the age of 16, because it is unlawful. Over the age of 16 the issue of valid consent is paramount, but as we see with the woeful prosecution rates for rape cases, can be very tricky to actually assess according to the thresholds of proof the law requires.

Of course, in a more practical sense the law tends to turn a blind eye to teenagers under 16 having consensual sex, but the law does provide a useful approach to asymmetric relationships involving much older person and an under 16 where there may be a power relationship. That under the age of 16 sex is unlawful means that the law doesn't have to go into the complexities of whether or not there was valid consent, it is unlawful regardless.

So to answer your question - changing the age of consent is a matter for the law, it isn't an ethical issue and it wouldn't change my opinion on whether a particular activity was ethical or not.

Thanks for the information and your opinion.

So ignoring Mary's age, which we do not know and therefore cannot determine if she was under-age by whatever age of consent we choose to consider, is our difference of opinion on whether her consent was legally valid or whether she would be considered in a legal case to have been coerced, based on the text in the story? My opinion is we can't reach a legal conclusion based on the wording in the text, as there is not enough information to determine valid consent from a legal perspective.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was considering whoever you were considering - it was in response to your post.

How on earth would you be able to assess the popularity of an opinion that I am a professor amongst those I know in the real world beyond this MB VG.

I can't say that I am invested in my popularity on the internet ...

No shit Sherlock - you are one step up (or maybe one step down) from Toby Young on the 'how to lose friends and alienate people' front. Just look at your engagement with BHS on this thread, let alone me.

... so I wouldn't think to comment on whether I am popular amongst posters.

Nice swerve into misrepresenting me. I never made any comment about whether I am popular amongst posters.

In response to your accusation:

I find you jump to conclusions and make assumptions in discussions, that aren't supported by sufficient evidence. I replied,

Other opinions are available and may well be rather more popular VG.

The point was whether your accusation would be a popular opinion compared to others, such as that I do not jump to conclusions and make assumptions in discussions, without sufficient evidence. This has nothing to do with my popularity personally.

You then, as per your obsession, lurched into claiming that it might be a popular view that I am not 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.

Actually that isn't a matter on which one can have a view or an opinion as it is a matter of fact - I either am, or I am not. And the fact is that I am.

I fail to see where any of this is about personal popularity VG, but hey why not double down on the misrepresentation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Would you say someone trying to use their professional credentials to support their argument on an anonymous online forum, when there is no way of posters being able to verify whether those credentials are in fact real, is rather unethical?

No - anyone on a forum can choose to be anonymous, or to fully or partially reveal themselves - that is our choice. That has no bearing on whether they bring their expertise and experience onto this MB. Otherwise none of us would be able to discuss our real-life experiences unless we de-anonymised ourselves.

As I have said previously you have indicated here that you are female, a muslim and were brought up in a different faith. I accept that - why wouldn't I. Why are you so unwilling to extend the same courtesy to me?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

How on earth would you be able to assess the popularity of an opinion that I am a professor amongst those I know in the real world beyond this MB VG.

I can't assess it or reach a conclusion. I was just raising the possibility that it might be a popular view "that you are not really a professor and certainly not in any field of ethics".

No shit Sherlock - you are one step up (or maybe one step down) from Toby Young on the 'how to lose friends and alienate people' front. Just look at your engagement with BHS on this thread, let alone me.

Right back at you.

Nice swerve into misrepresenting me. I never made any comment about whether I am popular amongst posters.

Apologies you are right, you didn't.

In response to your accusation:

I find you jump to conclusions and make assumptions in discussions, that aren't supported by sufficient evidence. I replied,

Other opinions are available and may well be rather more popular VG.

The point was whether your accusation would be a popular opinion compared to others, such as that I do not jump to conclusions and make assumptions in discussions, without sufficient evidence. This has nothing to do with my popularity personally.

You then, as per your obsession, lurched into claiming that it might be a popular view that I am not a professor:

I wouldn't say it was an obsession - more a nice game to play to pass the time - e.g. a bit like these https://lifehacker.com/11-of-the-best-mindless-mobile-games-you-never-knew-you-1847504307

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.

Actually that isn't a matter on which one can have a view or an opinion as it is a matter of fact - I either am, or I am not. And the fact is that I am.

I fail to see where any of this is about personal popularity VG, but hey why not double down on the misrepresentation.

Sorry, sometimes when playing games I don't always pay close attention, as the outcome isn't all that important.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No - anyone on a forum can choose to be anonymous, or to fully or partially reveal themselves - that is our choice. That has no bearing on whether they bring their expertise and experience onto this MB. Otherwise none of us would be able to discuss our real-life experiences unless we de-anonymised ourselves.

As I have said previously you have indicated here that you are female, a muslim and were brought up in a different faith. I accept that - why wouldn't I.

It's ok if you don't accept it, because it does not affect my argument.

Why are you so unwilling to extend the same courtesy to me?

Because I don't know whether you really are a professor. Though it is true that I could accept it as an act of faith in the absence of evidence. I don't think it matters though - I don't consider your arguments to carry more weight even if you are a professor.