Religions have succeeded

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are assuming that Mary is a minor on Zero grounds.

No, I’m “assuming” the Mary of the story was a minor on the basis of the scholarship available to me. Try googling “How old was Mary?” and you’ll see it for yourself. These are religious websites by the way, not part of the paranoid antitheist conspiracy you keep trying to conjure into existence.
 

You seem to have no idea where to place any immorality or have any fixed definition of immorality having tried coercion, sexual assault. You haven’t established these but also there is no western definition of minority as was pointed out to you several posts ago.

Morality and legislation don’t always align, but if we take the latter as our starting point yes there is (in the UK it’s in the Sexual Offences Act 2003; Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008; Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009; Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005), and other Western countries have their own legislation. Scholarship on the age of Mary suggests she was younger than these lower limits enshrined in law.   

You cannot claim a moral zeitgeist or moral consensus elsewhere and then specially plead the opposite here and remain credibly neutral or balanced.

Straw man noted. I don’t claim moral absolutes at all. What I do claim though is contemporary moral standards and positions that are misaligned with the behaviour of the god of the Bible story.

You’ll never answer this I know, but I just wondered which moral position you prefer – your god’s or your society’s? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Presuming you mean valid consent (not that there is any other form) - the text certainly fails to provide any evidence of valid consent.

Why would it - it's unlikely the authors were intending this story to be about the issue of consent. Just because the authors have not gone into any detail in a Bible story is not sufficient evidence to conclude that consent was absent. 

The key reason being that there is nothing to suggest that Mary is actaully being offered a choice for her to make, rather than being told what will happen to her.

That is one interpretation. Another is that Mary is being told about a future plan and could have said she was not onboard for a supernatural pregnancy.

But then I guess assessing the process for obtaining valid consent isn't something you've given much thought to VG, whereas I spend quite a lot of my professional time doing exactly that.

So you keep claiming, but given that you seem to think you can make any kind of useful assessment from a few lines in a Bible story that is not meant to be about the issue of consent, I do not see any evidence of your claim being true. On the other hand, maybe you are just really bad at carrying out assessments. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Why would it - it's unlikely the authors were intending this story to be about the issue of consent.

True - but the starting point of the conversation was Vlad's assertion that v38 demonstrated that Mary gave valid consent. It doesn't.

Just because the authors have not gone into any detail in a Bible story is not sufficient evidence to conclude that consent was absent.

Why would you assume that further detail would have demonstrated consent - given that consent wouldn't have been a particular issue for the societies and cultures involved I'm struggling to see why this information would be in the material 'on the cutting room floor' so to speak.
 

That is one interpretation. Another is that Mary is being told about a future plan and could have said she was not onboard for a supernatural pregnancy.

But in the story the angel tells her that god's word is that Mary will become pregnant and that is what is going to happen, because 'no word from god will ever fail'. Not room for a 'thanks but no thanks' from Mary is there really.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Why would it - it's unlikely the authors were intending this story to be about the issue of consent. Just because the authors have not gone into any detail in a Bible story is not sufficient evidence to conclude that consent was absent.

Yes it is. The story describes the act of a god the Bible also states to be morally perfect, and the story is clear about what this god (via his angelic envoy) did.

Whether the authors intended the story to be about consent is neither here nor there – the question of consent is baked in to the basic “facts” the authors produceds notwithstanding. That’s why it’s legitimate to ask whether, on the basis of the story as it’s set out, the morally perfect god character acted in accordance with today’s understanding of consent.       

That is one interpretation. Another is that Mary is being told about a future plan and could have said she was not onboard for a supernatural pregnancy.

No - the word used in the translations I’ve seen is “will”. Mary will be impregnated, she will give birth etc. There’s no ambiguity in that “will” - she was told, not asked.

So you keep claiming, but given that you seem to think you can make any kind of useful assessment from a few lines in a Bible story that is not meant to be about the issue of consent, I do not see any evidence of your claim being true. On the other hand, maybe you are just really bad at carrying out assessments. 

No – see above. You can make a “useful assessment” of the Bible story every bit as much as you can make a useful assessment of one of Aesop’s fables, and the intention of the authors re consent is irrelevant – indeed it’s quite possible that the moral question about consent would have been meaningless to them. That’s not the point though.   

[ProfessorDavey]

No - the word used in the translations I’ve seen is “will”. Mary will be impregnated, she will give birth etc. There’s no ambiguity in that “will” - she was told, not asked.

And the angel tells her that 'no word from god will ever fail' - effectively if god wills it that is what is going to happen.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why would you assume Mary is an outlier. And anyhow, this won't be a bell curve as there will be a skewed distribution.

I am not making any assumptions since no ages are given in the bible. There are competing estimations of age ranges of betrothal and subsequent marriage and then subsequent pregnancy so even with low marriage age you could be 17 but then it would be unreasonable to discount 18 or 19.
There is no sufficient reason for an assumption. I suggest a slightly older Mary for reasons derived from the new testament rather than your derivation from ancient sociology.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you keep claiming, but given that you seem to think you can make any kind of useful assessment from a few lines in a Bible story that is not meant to be about the issue of consent, I do not see any evidence of your claim being true.

But this is what we are discussing - through assessment of the NT text, does it support the notion that Mary provided valid consent, or that valid consent was absent. And the assessment leads to the latter conclusion.

On the other hand, maybe you are just really bad at carrying out assessments.

Yawn - yet more snide comments from VG.

Of and by the way any chance of you answering the question on supernatural pregnancies - I've not 'demanded' this all afternoon (actually I never demanded it at all, merely asked). I'm sure we'd all love to know your view on the matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, I’m “assuming” the Mary of the story was a minor on the basis of the scholarship available to me. Try googling “How old was Mary?” and you’ll see it for yourself. These are religious websites by the way, not part of the paranoid antitheist conspiracy you keep trying to conjure into existence.
 
Morality and legislation don’t always align, but if we take the latter as our starting point yes there is (in the UK it’s in the Sexual Offences Act 2003; Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008; Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009; Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005), and other Western countries have their own legislation. Scholarship on the age of Mary suggests she was younger than these lower limits enshrined in law.   

Straw man noted. I don’t claim moral absolutes at all. What I do claim though is contemporary moral standards and positions that are misaligned with the behaviour of the god of the Bible story.

You’ll never answer this I know, but I just wondered which moral position you prefer – your god’s or your society’s?

But Hillside,what sexual offence has God committed?
I suppose artificial insemination on farms could under your logic be charged with bestiality and people that clone sheep too.

So you are also hoping people forget your previous commitment to relative morality, zeitgeist and moral concensus by culture.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Would you also mindlessly and childishly continually try to wind them up? So you have your doubts about the Prof really being a prof. [We get that. We got it the first time you said it ages back. To keep banging on about it makes you sound a bit odd, and a bit - sad.

Nothing wrong with being a bit odd and a bit sad. I have plenty of company on here, including you.

But in any case my comments were aimed at PD, when he tries to bring his credentials into posts, so feel free to skim past our conversation. I made a comment on Page 7 stating "This is a nonsense argument. You can't apply the 21st century legal rules of evidence or consent to an ancient biblical story. Nor can you conclude anything based on the limited information available in this story and no opportunity to question any witnesses. Let's hope you don't take this same nonsensical approach in the rest of your life outside this Message Board."

So no mention there in my comment of PD not being a professor.

When PD followed that by posting "Hey VG, my ethics module will start again in late January - perhaps you should come along. Looks like you need a bit of updating on understanding of consent." I naturally assumed he wanted to discuss his credentials. And our conversation about his credentials, in which PD and I both engaged, and which you were not invited to participate in, continued from there.

Yet here you are DU, only irritated by one person's contribution to a conversation. I wonder what that says about you and your biases and prejudices.

If you feel the need to weigh on PD's behalf, I can only assume it is because you think he needs help. You obviously don't rate his standard of argument very highly either.

You strike me as a slightly better educated version of Vicky Pollard. Apparently your "Yes" means something like "Yeah but, no but, so SHAAUP"

You strike me as a colossal snob. What makes you think I am slightly better educated than Vicki Pollard? Maybe Vicky Pollard is also claiming to be a professor, like PD here.

[ProfessorDavey]

When PD followed that by posting "Hey VG, my ethics module will start again in late January - perhaps you should come along. Looks like you need a bit of updating on understanding of consent." I naturally assumed he wanted to discuss his credentials.

Weird - there was me thinking this was an opportunity to discuss valid consent, a topic I have a strong professional interest and experience in.

And our conversation about his credentials, in which PD and I both engaged, and which you were not invited to participate in, continued from there.

Who are you to say who is, and who is not, invited to participate in a discussion. This is a forum, not a private conversation (you can do that via other routes) and therefore everyone is invited to join the conversation.

Actually when I asked about whether certain opinions were popular or not, in a rather light touch manner, I was specifically opening up to others to voice their own opinions about firstly whether I tend to base my opinions on evidence, and secondly whether others doubt that I am a professor.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes, I have explained why based on the text. Mary could be older based on any bell curve... do you have one?

That’s unintentionally hilarious by the way. A bell curve describes a normal probability distribution whose underlying standard deviations from the mean create the curved bell shape. Based on the historical information we do have, the mean age for 1st century Palestinian girls to get engaged and to have their first pregnancy was around 12 - 14. This age range would therefore be at the centre of the bell curve, with the largest number of subjects under it. The outliers at the tails though – say 7 - 9 year-olds on one side and 16 - 18 year-olds on the other – would each have the fewest numbers of subjects.       

What that means is that, even with no information at all about Mary, probabilistically she’d have been more likely to be in the larger mean age group than to be in one of the smaller outlier groups. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe Vicky Pollard is also claiming to be a professor, like PD here.

I don't claim to be a professor VG.

[Dicky Underpants]

Nothing wrong with being a bit odd and a bit sad. I have plenty of company on here, including you.

But in any case my comments were aimed at PD, when he tries to bring his credentials into posts, so feel free to skim past our conversation. I made a comment on Page 7 stating "This is a nonsense argument. You can't apply the 21st century legal rules of evidence or consent to an ancient biblical story. Nor can you conclude anything based on the limited information available in this story and no opportunity to question any witnesses. Let's hope you don't take this same nonsensical approach in the rest of your life outside this Message Board."

So no mention there in my comment of PD not being a professor.

When PD followed that by posting "Hey VG, my ethics module will start again in late January - perhaps you should come along. Looks like you need a bit of updating on understanding of consent." I naturally assumed he wanted to discuss his credentials. And our conversation about his credentials, in which PD and I both engaged, and which you were not invited to participate in, continued from there.

Yet here you are DU, only irritated by one person's contribution to a conversation. I wonder what that says about you and your biases and prejudices.

If you feel the need to weigh on PD's behalf, I can only assume it is because you think he needs help. You obviously don't rate his standard of argument very highly either.
You strike me as a colossal snob. What makes you think I am slightly better educated than Vicki Pollard? Maybe Vicky Pollard is also claiming to be a professor, like PD here.

Well, that rant was totally predictable.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well, that rant was totally predictable.

Sadly so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But Hillside,what sexual offence has God committed?

Non-consensual impregnation of a minor.

I suppose artificial insemination on farms could under your logic be charged with bestiality and people that clone sheep too.

What on earth are you talking about?

So you are also hoping people forget your previous commitment to relative morality, zeitgeist and moral concensus by culture.

Why are you lying again? To the contrary I’m content for anyone to remember anything I’ve said in the past as it’s entirely consistent with what I’m saying now. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But this is what we are discussing - through assessment of the NT text, does it support the notion that Mary provided valid consent, or that valid consent was absent. And the assessment leads to the latter conclusion.

That wasn't the starting point of the discussion.

The discussion was based on your response to Sriram posting that no religion teaches the exploitation of women. You responded in #88 about the Christmas concert you were at where they quoted from Genesis  "'Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

You then said "And this is the very starting point of three of the major religions in the world today - Judaism, Christianity and Islam."

I asked you what you meant about that quote being the starting point of Islam, and you did not respond.

Vlad then responded to your point about the quote being used as part of the Christmas concert, by saying that the nativity narrative in the Bible that shows Mary as a key decision-maker in the foundation of the Gospel, contradicts the line about men ruling over women.

And your response was that the Bible NT text was showing God was ruling over Mary.

Does that mean you agree with Vlad that men weren't ruling over Mary, given that God and men are not the same in the NT.

You then stated that "The story of Mary, as written in the NT is one of someone ordered to do something over which she is given absolutely no choice." You are free to assert this, but your evidence was quoting a story that had very limited information.

So you started the discussion with the claim that the NT text supports the notion that Mary had no choice, and yet there was little evidence from the text to support your claim. Your opinion was that the word "will" indicates lack of choice. Other interpretations and opinions are available, such as that it was a prophetic statement, and Mary's choice to be a servant of God indicated her choice to agree to fulfil the prophecy. You said there was a power imbalance that negated consent, yet Christians who claim to be servants of God do so claiming they have a choice whether to act according to their understanding of God's wishes or not. Hence the thread on free will. So once again, there are opinions that contradict your opinion that the NT text shows Mary did not have a choice.

You may want to switch the discussion to an assessment of the NT text, to see if it supports the notion that Mary provided valid consent, but I already said I didn't think the text provided enough information to reach a conclusion for your claim of no consent, nor for any claim of valid consent. So why have you conveniently forgotten your claim that the NT text shows there was no consent?

By the way, you also mentioned in #88 the "perceived sexually-inspired threat and deceit by women towards men".

The idea of women being ruled over by men and women threatening and deceiving men sounds very misogynistic to me - but you claim it is merely patriarchal and not misogynistic. I think you're wrong. If you can't see the misogyny in those 2 line, that's up to you, but I read it as being misogynistic.

Yawn - yet more snide comments from VG.

I wanted to give your snobby friend DU an opportunity to respond with more childish rants about Vicky Pollard. He seemed to be enjoying himself there.

Of and by the way any chance of you answering the question on supernatural pregnancies - I've not 'demanded' this all afternoon (actually I never demanded it at all, merely asked). I'm sure we'd all love to know your view on the matter.

Any chance of you answering my question about the starting point of Islam being men ruling over women? What evidence are you using to assess the basis for the starting point of Islam?

[ProfessorDavey]

Any chance of you answering my question about the starting point of Islam being men ruling over women? What evidence are you using to assess the basis for the starting point of Islam?

Which isn't what I said.

But are you denying that Islam is an Abrahamic religion - one that both references the Torah (which of course includes Genesis) in the Quran  and as far as I understand it also considers the Torah to have been revealed by god. Are you denying that many of the stories originally in the Torah also appear in the Quran, albeit sometimes with differing interpretations. Are you denying that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have a range of central characters in common, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and indeed Jesus. Each religion may differ in its interpretations but they are fundamentally interlinked.

And why might this be - well because, like Christianity, Islam also grew out of Judaism. So without Judaism there would be no Islam - and the starting point of Judaism is Genesis, which is therefore the starting point not just of Judaism, but also of Christianity and Islam.

There you go - I've answered your question - over to you VG.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

True - but the starting point of the conversation was Vlad's assertion that v38 demonstrated that Mary gave valid consent. It doesn't.

No the starting point of the discussion was your claim that the NT text shows there was no consent. It doesn't. There is not enough information to reach a conclusion.

Why would you assume that further detail would have demonstrated consent - given that consent wouldn't have been a particular issue for the societies and cultures involved I'm struggling to see why this information would be in the material 'on the cutting room floor' so to speak.

I haven't assumed that any further detail would have demonstrated consent. That is a bizarre interpretation of what I wrote. I said there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that consent was absent. I didn't speculate about what might have been written to show consent was given - how can anyone possibly speculate about what an unknown author might have written? How would anyone ever know?

But in the story the angel tells her that god's word is that Mary will become pregnant and that is what is going to happen, because 'no word from god will ever fail'. Not room for a 'thanks but no thanks' from Mary is there really.

How are you adding a "because" to what the angel said in the story? And what do you mean by "no word from god will ever fail"? The text just has Mary asking how she will become pregnant as she is a virgin, and the angel says it will happen by the holy spirit etc etc and Mary says let it happen as described.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well, that rant was totally predictable.

As was your rant. Welcome to the ranting club. You're just the kind of member the club is looking for, with that childish Vicky Pollard comment. Well done you.

[ProfessorDavey]

I said there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that consent was absent.

I think there is plenty of evidence to indicate that consent was absent - for example the failure to indicate there is a choice and the grossy lop-sided power relationship between on the one hand, an all powerful god, and on the other a person (age is irrelevant) who considers themselves to be the servant of god. Under those circumstances there can be no valid consent unless very, very great care is taken to mitigate against that power relationship. No such mitigation is apparent.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which isn't what I said.

That is exactly what you said in #88. Why lie about it?

You said and I quote:

Really - I was at a school christmas concert a couple of nights ago that included the standard bible readings used for that purpose, which includes the start of Genesis which included the following words (note girls and boys were present):

'Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

And this is the very starting point of three of the major religions in the world today - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

But are you denying that Islam is an Abrahamic religion - one that both references the Torah (which of course includes Genesis) in the Quran  and as far as I understand it also considers the Torah to have been revealed by god. Are you denying that many of the stories originally in the Torah also appear in the Quran, albeit sometimes with differing interpretations. Are you denying that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have a range of central characters in common, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and indeed Jesus. Each religion may differ in its interpretations but they are fundamentally interlinked.

And why might this be - well because, like Christianity, Islam also grew out of Judaism. So without Judaism there would be no Islam - and the starting point of Judaism is Genesis, which is therefore the starting point not just of Judaism, but also of Christianity and Islam.

There you go - I've answered your question - over to you VG.

No you haven't answered the question. And your little speech about the origins of Islam is not answering the question. You made a positive claim. So justify it. Where in the Quran does it say: 'Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

If you want to learn some views on the pain of childbirth from an Islamic perspective, here are some thoughts on the matter:

https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/39386/does-islam-have-an-explanation-for-the-pain-of-childbirth

There is too much stuff related to Islamic views about the relationship between men and women to go into here. I can start a thread on the Muslim board if you are genuinely interested.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think there is plenty of evidence to indicate that consent was absent - for example the failure to indicate there is a choice and the grossy lop-sided power relationship between on the one hand, an all powerful god, and on the other a person (age is irrelevant) who considers themselves to be the servant of god.

That is not evidence to indicate that consent was absent. That is just evidence that the authors did not write about the issue of consent in any detail.

Under those circumstances there can be no valid consent unless very, very great care is taken to mitigate against that power relationship. No such mitigation is apparent.

Except those aren't the circumstances if the all-powerful god gives people a choice as to whether to act according to God's wishes or not. Which is the choice that many theists believe they are given according to their understanding of religious teachings.

Much like being a child of parents who want you to be circumcised does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the child's consent to circumcision is invalid or that the child did not have a choice.

Based on religious teachings, many theists also believe that considering themselves a servant of God does not mean they can't consider themselves able to go against God's wishes. The teachings include the idea of not following God's wishes and trying to follow God's wishes and not succeeding. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Really - I was at a school christmas concert a couple of nights ago that included the standard bible readings used for that purpose, which includes the start of Genesis which included the following words (note girls and boys were present):

'Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

And this is the very starting point of three of the major religions in the world today - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Just added a little emphasis to aid your understanding.

Genesis is the first chapter of the Torah - this is from the start of Genesis - hence this is the very starting point of all three religions, as it is literally the starting point for Judaism and as Christianity and Islam grew out of Judaism and both recognise the Torah (including Genesis) to be revealed by god then it is the very starting point of them too.

How hard is that to understand.

Question answered - your turn VG

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Just added a little emphasis to aid your understanding.

Genesis is the first chapter of the Torah - this is from the start of Genesis - hence this is the very starting point of all three religions, as it is literally the starting point for Judaism and as Christianity and Islam grew out of Judaism and both recognise the Torah (including Genesis) to be revealed by god then it is the very starting point of them too.

How hard is that to understand.

Question answered - your turn VG

No you haven't answered the question. And your little speech about the origins of Islam is not answering the question. You made a positive claim. So justify it. Where in the Quran does it say: 'Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

If you want to learn some views on the pain of childbirth from an Islamic perspective, here are some thoughts on the matter:

https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/39386/does-islam-have-an-explanation-for-the-pain-of-childbirth

There is too much stuff related to Islamic views about the relationship between men and women to go into here. I can start a thread on the Muslim board if you are genuinely interested.

ETA - where do you get that the idea that Islam recognises Genesis in the Torah in its current form as the word of God? I suggest you read the differences between the Quran and Genesis. Part of many Islamic teachings is that the Torah and Gospels in current form have been changed by writers.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Yes it is. The story describes the act of a god the Bible also states to be morally perfect, and the story is clear about what this god (via his angelic envoy) did.

Whether the authors intended the story to be about consent is neither here nor there – the question of consent is baked in to the basic “facts” the authors produceds notwithstanding. That’s why it’s legitimate to ask whether, on the basis of the story as it’s set out, the morally perfect god character acted in accordance with today’s understanding of consent.

Disagree with your opinion. Whether the authors intended the story to be about consent and whether, therefore, they gave sufficient detail to make an assessment, is one of the main points of this discussion.   

No - the word used in the translations I’ve seen is “will”. Mary will be impregnated, she will give birth etc. There’s no ambiguity in that “will” - she was told, not asked.

That is one interpretation. Others are available. "Will" could indicate that it's a future event and not that there is no choice. Mary's response could indicate that she confirmed her willingness to go along with it and therefore she perceived a choice.

No – see above. You can make a “useful assessment” of the Bible story every bit as much as you can make a useful assessment of one of Aesop’s fables, and the intention of the authors re consent is irrelevant – indeed it’s quite possible that the moral question about consent would have been meaningless to them. That’s not the point though.   

You can form an opinion. Others are available.

If you are forming an opinion based on the words the authors chose to include in their narrative, and they chose not put in much detail about consent, then the intention of the authors re consent is not irrelevant.