Julie Burchill forced to apologise for twitter comments , and pay out a fat wedge .

[bimble]

And there is also a feminist take on that, which says that they weren’t raped, they took lovers from amongst the gods but that was frowned upon because women can’t be seen to have sexual agency, so it must have been rape.

This has blown my tiny mind, in an Of Course! sort of way, thanks for that. Who wouldn’t fancy a swan, after all. Sort of.

 

[belboid]

Feel free to point out what was unreasonable about what I said.

well, there is the very obvious contradiction between being prepubescent and being pregnant. There's the statement of dubious tosh as fact (even if it is dubious tosh lots of other people believe) and there is the childish provocateurishness of silly statements like 'she was raped by the Holy Spirit' (within which I could include your contrary willingness to apparently accept how the 'christian tradition' varies but dont allow that for the muslim tradition).

We had all this a few years ago, when it was the EDL & BNP shouting 'Muhammed was a padeo.' Generally then, people had more sense that to go 'well, they are right about that.' No longer, it seems.

 

[belboid]

Think the consensus is she married at perhaps 14 or a little older, and was 16 when Jesus was born.

any modern consensus is just that, and riddled with attempts to make her a more acceptable age (as there is with Aisha). 16 (or 18 as many calculate Aisha's actual age on giving birth to have been) is distinctly later then normal for the period.

 

[8ball]

any modern consensus is just that, and riddled with attempts to make her a more acceptable age (as there is with Aisha). 16 (or 18 as many calculate Aisha's actual age on giving birth to have been) is distinctly later then normal for the period.

I don't know anything much about Aisha. Aside from what she had in common with Mary ie. that she probably didn't exist.

I hope what is going on here isn't the old style bigotry with the small difference of employing folk demons rather than literal ones.

 

[danny la rouge]

well, there is the very obvious contradiction between being prepubescent and being pregnant.

There’s no consensus in the tradition that the consumption of the marriage was when she became pregnant.

There's the statement of dubious tosh as fact (even if it is dubious tosh lots of other people believe)

The “dubious tosh” of her age according to Muslim tradition? So it’s OK for you to call Muslim tradition “dubious tosh”? That’s pretty selective isn’t it?

and there is the childish provocateurishness of silly statements like 'she was raped by the Holy Spirit'

What would you call being made pregnant without your consent or knowledge?

(within which I could include your contrary willingness to apparently accept how the 'christian tradition' varies but dont allow that for the muslim tradition).

This is a false assertion.

We had all this a few years ago, when it was the EDL & BNP shouting 'Muhammed was a padeo.' Generally then, people had more sense that to go 'well, they are right about that.' No longer, it seems.

That’s just an association fallacy. You know who else used to do that? Hitler.

 

[SheilaNaGig]

This has blown my tiny mind, in an Of Course! sort of way, thanks for that. Who wouldn’t fancy a swan, after all. Sort of.

I remember that feeling from when I first thought of it. It made re-reading the myths really exciting, and kinda funny too, like I was finally in on a big joke.

 

[8ball]

What would you call being made pregnant without your consent or knowledge?

1: Luke 1:38
2: Admittedly, going via an intermediary is an oddly primary school way of dealing with it

 

[danny la rouge]

1: Luke 1:38
2: Admittedly, going via an intermediary is an oddly primary school way of dealing with it

Fair enough. Although Matthew 1:18 gives a different account.

 

[Pickman's model]

Julie burchill would have her mind blown by this thread

 

[stethoscope]

Burchill is one of the original 'controversialists', especially for her shit regular comments about trans people in the Guardian many years ago. Then she seemed to lose popularity and no one took a blind bit of notice of her increasingly 'look at me look at me' articles. However, in the current climate of Spiked, etc. that's found favour again.

I remember seeing what she posted towards Sarkar at the time and it was grim. Whether you like Sarkar or not (I don't mind her personally), she's on the receiving end of some seriously awful and at times obsessive racist and misogynist shit.

 

[8ball]

Fair enough. Although Matthew 1:18 gives a different account.

Well, could be an honest account from a different pov, if we want to discuss the Gospels possibly over-seriously.

 

[danny la rouge]

Julie burchill would have her mind blown by this thread

That sounds like a good result all round.

 

[danny la rouge]

Well, could be an honest account from a different pov, if we want to discuss the Gospels possibly over-seriously.

Matthew and Luke were written long after the events, though. Acts doesn’t mention the Virgin Birth at all.

 

[Pickman's model]

Matthew and Luke were written long after the events, though. Acts doesn’t mention the Virgin Birth at all.

What about Thomas, Judas etc?

 

[danny la rouge]

What about Thomas, Judas etc?

They rolled off the altar, so don’t count.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Burchill is one of the original 'controversialists', especially for her shit regular comments about trans people in the Guardian many years ago. Then she seemed to lose popularity and no one took a blind bit of notice of her increasingly 'look at me look at me' articles. However, in the current climate of Spiked, etc. that's found favour again.

I remember seeing what she posted towards Sarkar at the time and it was grim. Whether you like Sarkar or not (I don't mind her personally), she's on the receiving end of some seriously awful and at times obsessive racist and misogynist shit.

She's really no different than the likes of Rush Limbaugh. A vile, toxic bigot who defends Rod Liddle and his pro-paedo views.

 

[8ball]

Matthew and Luke were written long after the events, though. Acts doesn’t mention the Virgin Birth at all.

It's pretty uncertain when Acts was written too.
And virgin births are everywhere, from Ra to Anakin Skywalker.

 

[8ball]

She's really no different than the likes of Rush Limbaugh. A vile, toxic bigot who defends Rod Liddle and his pro-paedo views.

That's really unfair, I've never heard of Rush Limbaugh defending Rod Liddle.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's pretty uncertain when Acts was written too.
And virgin births are everywhere, from Ra to Anakin Skywalker.

Acts is generally thought to be the earliest though.

 

[8ball]

Acts is generally thought to be the earliest though.

'Generally' being the case, and also considered to be in the 6th decade or thereabouts iirc <it's been a long time>.
Different things get mentioned in different places - I wouldn't take any single one of them as gospel <cough!>

 

[chilango]

Thanks to you fuckers I've spent the last 20 minutes reading about apocryphal gospels on Wikipedia.

Bet Burchill didn't intend that!

 

[danny la rouge]

'Generally' being the case, and also considered to be in the 6th decade or thereabouts iirc <it's been a long time>.
Different things get mentioned in different places - I wouldn't take any single one of them as gospel <cough!>

There’s been threads about the historicity of Jesus before, so we could perhaps leave this topic for now. Although I do find it interesting.

A lot more interesting than anything to do with Burchill, as it happens.

 

[8ball]

There’s been threads about the historicity of Jesus before, so we could perhaps leave this topic for now. Although I do find it interesting.

A lot more interesting than anything to do with Burchill, as it happens.

Not sure whether we've had one about the historicity of Mohammed - was reading something interesting about this recently. Being quite a different character, I'd always assumed his existence status to be more rooted but i may have been wrong there.

Anyway, yeah, Burchill. Have enjoyed some of her articles in the past, but that half-cocked bigoted attack was a major low.

 

[belboid]

There’s no consensus in the tradition that the consumption of the marriage was when she became pregnant. The “dubious tosh” of her age according to Muslim tradition? So it’s OK for you to call Muslim tradition “dubious tosh”? That’s pretty selective isn’t it?

What would you call being made pregnant without your consent or knowledge?

This is a false assertion.

That’s just an association fallacy. You know who else used to do that? Hitler.

Yawn, nothing more than some rather poor sophistry there, Danny. You are wrong on most aspects, as you have accepted for one, but whatever. Your starting point seems to be a matter of historical conjecture (and tradition) rather than actual human beings, a mere intellectual exercise. On this thread (or indeed, in this time, when it comes to your comment on Mary) it seems grossly inappropriate, unless you think Birchall shouldn't have apologised.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not sure whether we've had one about the historicity of Mohammed - was reading something interesting about this recently. Being quite a different character, I'd always assumed his existence status to be more rooted but i may have been wrong there.

Yep. I was surprised when I looked into this a while ago. I had assumed that the evidence for his life was far more direct and secure than it actually is. There is very little that can be said to be well-evidenced history wrt Muhammad.

 

[Raheem]

The “dubious tosh” of her age according to Muslim tradition? So it’s OK for you to call Muslim tradition “dubious tosh”? That’s pretty selective isn’t it?

I think you may be under a false impression that there is a monolithic "Muslim tradition" wrt Aisha's age.

There are various sources (Hadith) for Muhammad's biography, which are inconsistent and not considered infallible or necessarily even reliable by Muslims. Aisha-as-child-bride comes from one particular lineage of Hadith, not universally considered reliable. Many Muslims might believe it, but others don't and, in principle, it's up to them as individuals (albeit what someone is brought up with will always be a big factor). In reality, it might be something a lot of Muslims never get round to really worrying about or weighing up.

 

[danny la rouge]

Not sure whether we've had one about the historicity of Mohammed - was reading something interesting about this recently. Being quite a different character, I'd always assumed his existence status to be more rooted but i may have been wrong there.

Anyway, yeah, Burchill. Have enjoyed some of her articles in the past, but that half-cocked bigoted attack was a major low.

One on Muhammad would be interesting. I know much less about his historicity. I don’t think there’s any good reason to believe he didn’t exist, though. (I also believe Jesus existed, or Yeshua Ben Yosef or whatever).

 

[danny la rouge]

I think you may be under a false impression that there is a monolithic "Muslim tradition" wrt Aisha's age.

No, I’m not. And I have said so in this thread.

 

[8ball]

One on Muhammad would be interesting. I know much less about his historicity. I don’t think there’s any good reason to believe he didn’t exist, though. (I also believe Jesus existed, or Yeshua Ben Yosef or whatever).

I think there's a good chance that neither existed (in terms of there being a single person the character was embellished around).

 

[Pickman's model]

The three impostors, Moses, Jesus, Mohamed