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

even flow - question mark

So if some still don't believe Jesus was married and Mary was a whore.....does that mean all men who uses whores should be called Jesus' instead of Johns? Or that sons of gods are the only people to play with these dirty women? So many more questions to answer.

inlet13

Kat wrote:

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.

I understand there's some form of thought that Mary Magdalene may have been a prostitute.

I also understand that the article cited by OP had nothing to do with that and had to do with a letter that may have been about Jesus Christ found 400 years after his death claiming that this person had a wife.

Why they needed to be linked in the title of the thread? Still unsure. But, truth be told, I don't really care. My point was about MT.

To me - I admitted I was wrong to use the term "whore" the other day. The term is either ok or not ok to use, right?

Can one say a person of "insert race" is "insert racial slur"? Because that's what the of the definition of the "insert racial slur" reads as?

All I'm looking for is consistency. That's all. Seems inconsistent. I'll let it go, but I just don't get it.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

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

i already threw you a bone by saying maybe she could use another term instead of whore ... but read what you are griping about ... you missed the point of the thread completely ... you don't even understand why the thread is titled as it is ... even worse - you leap to the conclusion that the OP is insinuating jesus married a prostitute ... which is way off base ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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

i already threw you a bone by saying maybe she could use another term instead of whore ... but read what you are griping about ... you missed the point of the thread completely ... you don't even understand why the thread is titled as it is ... even worse - you leap to the conclusion that the OP is insinuating jesus married a prostitute ... which is way off base ...

Once again, you don't get it. I was trying to be discreet and yet let my thoughts be heard to the powers that be. You're prying. So, I'll try to explain...

My points within have to do with consistency of use of terms - like "whore" in MT. I was told not to use that term when I said corporate whore in reference to a person we all here should respect. I admitted I was wrong. I'm assuming the same should be the case for the rest of the populace within MT, if the person referenced is respected, which as a Catholic Saint - I'd say she is... the term shouldn't be used.

End of story. That's my take. It's inconsistent.

Godfather.

I've known a few "whores" in my life time...but they don't like to be called whore's...infact they would kick your ass or stab you if called them that
but sense we are talking about Christanity on the Train then it would seem the word "whore" is o.k and not an insult like the word "fag" ....right ?

Godfather.

FattyFatCat

inlet13 wrote:

Kat wrote:

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.

I understand there's some form of thought that Mary Magdalene may have been a prostitute.

I also understand that the article cited by OP had nothing to do with that and had to do with a letter that may have been about Jesus Christ found 400 years after his death claiming that this person had a wife.

Why they needed to be linked in the title of the thread? Still unsure. But, truth be told, I don't really care. My point was about MT.

To me - I admitted I was wrong to use the term "whore" the other day. The term is either ok or not ok to use, right?

Can one say a person of "insert race" is "insert racial slur"? Because that's what the of the definition of the "insert racial slur" reads as?

All I'm looking for is consistency. That's all. Seems inconsistent. I'll let it go, but I just don't get it.

I agree with Inlet13 that the standard here is inconsistent. I feel like anything Christian is fair game to make fun of, or insult, as long as you're insulting ALL Christians- not just one member.

I'm afraid to even say any more, b/c the BAN threat is being thrown around a lot today...

Thank you for defending ALL members, Inlet13.

Not that you'll be well-received for it.

FattyFatCat

Godfather. wrote:

I've known a few "whores" in my life time...but they don't like to be called whore's...infact they would kick your ass or stab you if called them that
but sense we are talking about Christanity on the Train then it would seem the word "whore" is o.k and not an insult like the word "fag" ....right ?

Godfather.

Sandra Fluke is said to be an advocate for birth control issues.

Is this why Sandra Fluke was painted as a WHORE?


hmmm....

polaris_x

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.

i understand your frustration with what you perceive to be board inconsistencies ... but read what you wrote here ...

this is what we are responding to ... you missed the entire point of the thread ... feel free to focus on the inconsistencies on the use of a word ... i have no position on that one way or another ...

but you also voiced a concern over the title and the subject which based on this post and others clearly indicates that you've taken both the title and the topic out of context ...

inlet13

Godfather. wrote:

I've known a few "whores" in my life time...but they don't like to be called whore's...infact they would kick your ass or stab you if called them that
but sense we are talking about Christanity on the Train then it would seem the word "whore" is o.k and not an insult like the word "fag" ....right ?

Godfather.

To give another example...

If you used a racial slur, and that a definition would link up correctly to what you're describing, that's ok? But, if you use the racial slur in another way it's not ok?

I'd say - no, to most - it's not OK period... right? It's a slur. They shouldn't be used.

inlet13

polaris_x 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.

i understand your frustration with what you perceive to be board inconsistencies ... but read what you wrote here ...

this is what we are responding to ... you missed the entire point of the thread ... feel free to focus on the inconsistencies on the use of a word ... i have no position on that one way or another ...

but you also voiced a concern over the title and the subject which based on this post and others clearly indicates that you've taken both the title and the topic out of context ...

My beef here was the title and the use of the term "whore". I've said that to you now 3 times. I was trying to be discreet in my methods to communicate this to the powers that be, hence why you may be confused. I didn't think I needed to get into it further than that. But, you are continuing to pry.


Edit: I'm taking myself out of the thread and MT for the day. This was enough communication on the subject.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

My beef here was the title and the use of the term "whore". I've said that to you now 3 times. I was trying to be discreet in my methods to communicate this to the powers that be, hence why you may be confused. I didn't think I needed to get into it further than that. But, you are continuing to pry.

it's ok to admit you're wrong ... it's liberating ... but hey - however you want to frame it ... it's ok ...

even flow - question mark

[/quote]


To give another example...

If you used a racial slur, and that a definition would link up correctly to what you're describing, that's ok? But, if you use the racial slur in another way it's not ok?

I'd say - no, to most - it's not OK period... right? It's a slur. They shouldn't be used.[/quote]


So if a gay person came on and said: " I can't believe that wetback, Escobar would say something about my lifestyle." it would be okay? I doubt it. Just an example.

FattyFatCat

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

My beef here was the title and the use of the term "whore". I've said that to you now 3 times. I was trying to be discreet in my methods to communicate this to the powers that be, hence why you may be confused. I didn't think I needed to get into it further than that. But, you are continuing to pry.

it's ok to admit you're wrong ... it's liberating ... but hey - however you want to frame it ... it's ok ...

Keep baiting. What do you care? Its not like you have to worry about a ban. You're good.

polaris_x

FattyFatCat wrote:

Keep baiting. What do you care? Its not like you have to worry about a ban. You're good.

inlet and i have had many "discussions" ... often somewhat heated ... and we pretty much disagree about everything ... he is probably the polar opposite to me in viewpoints ... but i respect his opinion ... i'm not sure if i would classify this particular conversation as "baiting" but that's not really the purpose ...

Hugh Freaking Dillon

inlet13 wrote:

Once again, you don't get it. I was trying to be discreet and yet let my thoughts be heard to the powers that be. You're prying. So, I'll try to explain...

My points within have to do with consistency of use of terms - like "whore" in MT. I was told not to use that term when I said corporate whore in reference to a person we all here should respect. I admitted I was wrong. I'm assuming the same should be the case for the rest of the populace within MT, if the person referenced is respected, which as a Catholic Saint - I'd say she is... the term shouldn't be used.

End of story. That's my take. It's inconsistent.

it IS consistent, you are simply not understanding the intent behind it. calling someone a name is different than just saying that word. simple as that.

I've also seen that god-awful N word said before in a non-confrontational way, and that thread wasn't locked either. it's a shitty word, but when it was not being used in a spiteful way, but a factual way (as in, "he called that black man a n***er"), there's a huge difference.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

inlet13 wrote:

But, you are continuing to pry.

if you want to make a point to the "powers" and don't want anyone to see it or "pry" into it, do it privately.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

FattyFatCat wrote:

I agree with Inlet13 that the standard here is inconsistent. I feel like anything Christian is fair game to make fun of, or insult, as long as you're insulting ALL Christians- not just one member.

I would say this is absolutely incorrect. look at every religion thread that has ever been started. it always ends in a lock, and the reason for those locks is usually because of disrepectful comments towards the religious.

and in none of those threads did I ever see an agnostic/atheist laugh at a christian dying while burning a pride flag. just sayin'.

FattyFatCat

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

FattyFatCat wrote:

I agree with Inlet13 that the standard here is inconsistent. I feel like anything Christian is fair game to make fun of, or insult, as long as you're insulting ALL Christians- not just one member.

I would say this is absolutely incorrect. look at every religion thread that has ever been started. it always ends in a lock, and the reason for those locks is usually because of disrepectful comments towards the religious.

and in none of those threads did I ever see an agnostic/atheist laugh at a christian dying while burning a pride flag. just sayin'.

No, you're just confusing.

This horse has been beat to death here today. Poor horse...

Time for a beer and some Pearl Jam. Have a relaxing evening everyone...

PJ_Soul

It's just the Catholic Church's sexual hang ups that make this controversial. They wouldn't have a pedophile problem in the Church either if they'd just unclench and stop being so weird about sex.

MotoDC

polaris_x wrote:

FattyFatCat wrote:

Keep baiting. What do you care? Its not like you have to worry about a ban. You're good.

inlet and i have had many "discussions" ... often somewhat heated ... and we pretty much disagree about everything ... he is probably the polar opposite to me in viewpoints ... but i respect his opinion ... i'm not sure if i would classify this particular conversation as "baiting" but that's not really the purpose ...

Peas and carrots!