is this why mary magdalene was painted as a whore??

whygohome

inlet13 wrote:

PS...

:idea:

It's evidently OK around these parts to call a Christian Saint: Mary Magdalene - "a whore" while putting this in a thread title.

Yet, I recall getting a PM about calling someone else a corporate "w_____". :nono:

I'll admit, I'm a bit confused. Can someone help me out?

I think the OP was referring to the fact that she actually is depicted as a whore/prostitute, or "sorrowful repentant ascetic" in art and religious literature. I feel she was depicted in this way to negate any romantic connection to Jesus. A romantic connection would have humanized Jesus, which is something that the Church does not want.

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/15/local/me-mary15

Hugh Freaking Dillon

FattyFatCat wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

PS...

:idea:

It's evidently OK around these parts to call a Christian Saint: Mary Magdalene - "a whore" while putting this in a thread title.

Yet, I recall getting a PM about calling someone else a corporate "w_____". :nono:

I'll admit, I'm a bit confused. Can someone help me out?

There is a blatant bias in this forum. Hope that helps.

no, there isn't. if the OP had written that it was their opinion that MM was a whore, then it would be locked accordingly.

cincybearcat

inlet13 wrote:

PS...

:idea:

It's evidently OK around these parts to call a Christian Saint: Mary Magdalene - "a whore" while putting this in a thread title.

Yet, I recall getting a PM about calling someone else a corporate "w_____". :nono:

I'll admit, I'm a bit confused. Can someone help me out?

Well, it is different to call someone a whore then it is to ask why others call someone a whore isn't it?

inlet13

whygohome wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

PS...

:idea:

It's evidently OK around these parts to call a Christian Saint: Mary Magdalene - "a whore" while putting this in a thread title.

Yet, I recall getting a PM about calling someone else a corporate "w_____". :nono:

I'll admit, I'm a bit confused. Can someone help me out?

I think the OP was referring to the fact that she actually is depicted as a whore/prostitute, or "sorrowful repentant ascetic" in art and religious literature. I feel she was depicted in this way to negate any romantic connection to Jesus. A romantic connection would have humanized Jesus, which is something that the Church does not want.

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/15/local/me-mary15

I understand your point, but here's the deal. Some, actually many, could be "as offended" by that as what I said. Yet, no one casts an eye to this for some reason, despite the fact that it's in title and my comment was not. That woman is a Christian Saint and yes people here are claiming she was a whore. If someone criticizes Mr. Vedder with the same word with corporate in front of it, they are corrected. Fair enough - I get it - I was wrong - it was inappropriate language directed at someone who should be respected.... but, I think we should be fair in our use of the word "whore" and that same point to others. If it's wrong there, maybe it should be here? Seems odd.

At the end of the day, I think we all need to settle down and have a better respect for one another. Mods have a tough job. This title is a bit... ummmm... "baiting"..... and ummm... rough around the edges... and certainly could be offensive to some .... given the inter-workings within MT lately.

whygohome

inlet13 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

PS...

:idea:

It's evidently OK around these parts to call a Christian Saint: Mary Magdalene - "a whore" while putting this in a thread title.

Yet, I recall getting a PM about calling someone else a corporate "w_____". :nono:

I'll admit, I'm a bit confused. Can someone help me out?

I think the OP was referring to the fact that she actually is depicted as a whore/prostitute, or "sorrowful repentant ascetic" in art and religious literature. I feel she was depicted in this way to negate any romantic connection to Jesus. A romantic connection would have humanized Jesus, which is something that the Church does not want.

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/15/local/me-mary15

I understand your point, but here's the deal. Some, actually many, could be "as offended" by that as what I said. Yet, no one casts an eye to this for some reason, despite the fact that it's in title and my comment was not. That woman is a Christian Saint and yes people here are claiming she was a whore. If someone criticizes Mr. Vedder with the same word with corporate in front of it, they are corrected. Fair enough - I get it - I was wrong - it was inappropriate language directed at someone who should be respected.... but, I think we should be fair in our use of the word "whore" and that same point to others. If it's wrong there, maybe it should be here? Seems odd.

At the end of the day, I think we all need to settle down and have a better respect for one another. Mods have a tough job. This title is a bit... ummmm... "baiting"..... and ummm... rough around the edges... and certainly could be offensive to some .... given the inter-workings within MT lately.

Gotcha.

BinFrog

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

First, you would have to be clueless enough to think that Jesus was an actual person.

Then you would have to think that the bible... which was written hundreds of years after he "died," using hearsay and fables and countless conflicting texts... got it wrong.

Then you'd have to remember that marriage back then was usually a business transaction where women were traded for goats and stuff. And then you'd have to think that a socialist like Jesus would have a goat to pay her.

But hey sure... let's go with that.

I'm as anti-organized religion as they come. But the debate has never really been about the existence of Jesus as a person, as far as I know. Debate whether or not he was the son of god (since I do not believe in god, you know my thoughts on that one) or not, but I think it's pretty clear he at least existed.

Johnny Abruzzo

BinFrog wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

First, you would have to be clueless enough to think that Jesus was an actual person.

Then you would have to think that the bible... which was written hundreds of years after he "died," using hearsay and fables and countless conflicting texts... got it wrong.

Then you'd have to remember that marriage back then was usually a business transaction where women were traded for goats and stuff. And then you'd have to think that a socialist like Jesus would have a goat to pay her.

But hey sure... let's go with that.

I'm as anti-organized religion as they come. But the debate has never really been about the existence of Jesus as a person, as far as I know. Debate whether or not he was the son of god (since I do not believe in god, you know my thoughts on that one) or not, but I think it's pretty clear he at least existed.

Yea, I'm a disenchanted Catholic, but I thought pretty much all were in agreement that Jesus was an actual person.

This thread is all over the place.

BinauralJam

I think Jesus was a Jedi.

mikepegg44

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Yea, I'm a disenchanted Catholic, but I thought pretty much all were in agreement that Jesus was an actual person.

This thread is all over the place.

well you would be too if you had a running back coming off of knee surgery and a suspect secondary. Not to mention all the troops over seas and the fact that dogs are still aloud off leash in my neighborhood. If you can't keep up Johnny get out of the way.

Kat

The OP's question is in the subject line and it is a valid discussion. The questions about MM have been raised throughout history and may be a mystery without any final conclusion. Why this is being framed as mod bias is not a mystery and will result in action on certain forum accounts.

To contribute to the discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magda ... prostitute

Added: It may help to mention that I personally don't think she was and I'm not sure the document that was recently found is real. I have no reason to think it is or isn't.

FattyFatCat

inlet13 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

PS...

:idea:

It's evidently OK around these parts to call a Christian Saint: Mary Magdalene - "a whore" while putting this in a thread title.

Yet, I recall getting a PM about calling someone else a corporate "w_____". :nono:

I'll admit, I'm a bit confused. Can someone help me out?

I think the OP was referring to the fact that she actually is depicted as a whore/prostitute, or "sorrowful repentant ascetic" in art and religious literature. I feel she was depicted in this way to negate any romantic connection to Jesus. A romantic connection would have humanized Jesus, which is something that the Church does not want.

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/15/local/me-mary15

I understand your point, but here's the deal. Some, actually many, could be "as offended" by that as what I said. Yet, no one casts an eye to this for some reason, despite the fact that it's in title and my comment was not. That woman is a Christian Saint and yes people here are claiming she was a whore. If someone criticizes Mr. Vedder with the same word with corporate in front of it, they are corrected. Fair enough - I get it - I was wrong - it was inappropriate language directed at someone who should be respected.... but, I think we should be fair in our use of the word "whore" and that same point to others. If it's wrong there, maybe it should be here? Seems odd.

At the end of the day, I think we all need to settle down and have a better respect for one another. Mods have a tough job. This title is a bit... ummmm... "baiting"..... and ummm... rough around the edges... and certainly could be offensive to some .... given the inter-workings within MT lately.

Eddie Vedder is a FUCKING GOD.

Who is this unicorn-riding Jesus person?


:roll:

No wonder our planet is going to hell.








I just wanna get back to bashing Obama while others bash Bush....

FattyFatCat

Kat wrote:

The OP's question is in the subject line and it is a valid discussion. The questions about MM have been raised throughout history and may be a mystery without any final conclusion. Why this is being framed as mod bias is not a mystery and will result in action on certain forum accounts. To contribute to the discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magda ... prostitute

Now Im really confused.... :?

inlet13

Kat wrote:

The OP's question is in the subject line and it is a valid discussion. The questions about MM have been raised throughout history and may be a mystery without any final conclusion. Why this is being framed as mod bias is not a mystery and will result in action on certain forum accounts.

To contribute to the discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magda ... prostitute

Does she need to use the term "whore" to describe a Christian Saint in the heading though, couldn't she have used the term "wife" since that was what the article was about? The article was not about her being a whore or a prostitute - it's not mentioned once.

You don't think it's a bit of baiting? I mean the term whore is negative, right? And a slur? Let's ask ourselves, what exactly was the point of the OP post - re-read it if you like - it was that Jesus "may" of had a wife. What does that have to do with the term "whore"? Moreover, why was it used in the title of the thread? Don't you think it would have made more sense to use a title like :

Did Jesus have a wife?

or even:

Look - Jesus had a wife.

The connotation here is bigger than you're letting on. It's that Jesus was married to a whore. That's what she's saying. And that, there, that's messed up.

Let me ask you - since it's OK to use a derogatory slur against a Christian Saint, would it be OK to use a derogatory racial slur to describe an African American? We all know the answer is absolutely no - as it should be.

The thread title is kinda odd. That's all. I know - it's baiting and it's done here frequently against the religious folks - and I'm not even a big one of them - yet I see it.

If you want to ban me for explaining that position, so be it. I just wanted to clarify in case you didn't understand where I was coming from.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

inlet13 wrote:

Does she need to use the term "whore" to describe a Christian Saint in the heading though, couldn't she have used the term "wife" since that was what the article was about? The article was not about her being a whore or a prostitute - it's not mentioned once.

You don't think it's a bit of baiting? I mean the term whore is negative, right? And a slur? Let's ask ourselves, what exactly was the point of the OP post - re-read it if you like - it was that Jesus "may" of had a wife. What does that have to do with the term "whore"? Moreover, why was it used in the title of the thread? Don't you think it would have made more sense to use a title like :

Did Jesus have a wife?

or even:

Look - Jesus had a wife.

The connotation here is bigger than you're letting on. It's that Jesus was married to a whore. That's what she's saying. And that, there, that's messed up.

Let me ask you - since it's OK to use a derogatory slur against a Christian Saint, would it be OK to use a derogatory racial slur to describe an African American? We all know the answer is absolutely no - as it should be.

The thread title is kinda odd. That's all. I know - it's baiting and it's done here frequently against the religious folks - and I'm not even a big one of them - yet I see it.

If you want to ban me for explaining that position, so be it. I just wanted to clarify in case you didn't understand where I was coming from.

because she IS painted as a whore by the catholic community. the OP wasn't calling her one, the OP merely asked the question if this was why she was painted as one.

if you were to start a thread asking "is this why all muslims are painted as terrorists?", it would be fine. However, saying "all muslims are terrorists" would be quite a different statement to make.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Yea, I'm a disenchanted Catholic, but I thought pretty much all were in agreement that Jesus was an actual person.

I raised this same statement in a previous thread, and Byrnzie said that there is no evidence whatsoever that points to Jesus even existing in regular human form, and he posted a whole whack of links and articles I had no time to read.

polaris_x

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

because she IS painted as a whore by the catholic community. the OP wasn't calling her one, the OP merely asked the question if this was why she was painted as one.

if you were to start a thread asking "is this why all muslims are painted as terrorists?", it would be fine. However, saying "all muslims are terrorists" would be quite a different statement to make.

i thought it was obvious but clearly not ...

inlet13

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Does she need to use the term "whore" to describe a Christian Saint in the heading though, couldn't she have used the term "wife" since that was what the article was about? The article was not about her being a whore or a prostitute - it's not mentioned once.

You don't think it's a bit of baiting? I mean the term whore is negative, right? And a slur? Let's ask ourselves, what exactly was the point of the OP post - re-read it if you like - it was that Jesus "may" of had a wife. What does that have to do with the term "whore"? Moreover, why was it used in the title of the thread? Don't you think it would have made more sense to use a title like :

Did Jesus have a wife?

or even:

Look - Jesus had a wife.

The connotation here is bigger than you're letting on. It's that Jesus was married to a whore. That's what she's saying. And that, there, that's messed up.

Let me ask you - since it's OK to use a derogatory slur against a Christian Saint, would it be OK to use a derogatory racial slur to describe an African American? We all know the answer is absolutely no - as it should be.

The thread title is kinda odd. That's all. I know - it's baiting and it's done here frequently against the religious folks - and I'm not even a big one of them - yet I see it.

If you want to ban me for explaining that position, so be it. I just wanted to clarify in case you didn't understand where I was coming from.

because she IS painted as a whore by the catholic community. the OP wasn't calling her one, the OP merely asked the question if this was why she was painted as one.

if you were to start a thread asking "is this why all muslims are painted as terrorists?", it would be fine. However, saying "all muslims are terrorists" would be quite a different statement to make.

Why use it when the article she was citing had nothing to do with that inflammatory term whatsoever?

Kat

Inlet, the fact is, she *was* painted as a whore. I have my own personal feelings about why and whether or not she was and I'm going to keep it that way except for what I said above. This thread asks the question if possibly being Jesus's wife was the reason she was painted as a whore. The OP did NOT call her a whore and I do not know the reason that connection was made regarding the new find.

This thread could be closed but it's not offensive to question the reason for a historical fact. And what if someone believes she was? As distasteful as someone might find it, they have a right to think it and/or question it.

I really don't like religious topics.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

Why use it when the article she was citing had nothing to do with that inflammatory term whatsoever?

:fp:

* the article claims to prove that jesus had a wife
* if jesus indeed had a wife - a religious faction would lose some credibility
* this same faction is the one that painted mary magdalene as a whore
* therefore her thread title implies that this religious faction smeared mary magdalene by calling her a whore in order to perpetuate their agenda

could she use a different term instead of whore? ... sure ... but it doesn't change the validity of her thread title ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Why use it when the article she was citing had nothing to do with that inflammatory term whatsoever?

:fp:

* the article claims to prove that jesus had a wife
* if jesus indeed had a wife - a religious faction would lose some credibility
* this same faction is the one that painted mary magdalene as a whore
* therefore her thread title implies that this religious faction smeared mary magdalene by calling her a whore in order to perpetuate their agenda

could she use a different term instead of whore? ... sure ... but it doesn't change the validity of her thread title ...

You don't get it. It's about equal use of the term by posters here, polaris.