Matthew 5:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
Sorry, there's no objective evidence either way. Things that offend Christians don't offend you, so in your personal worldview there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that this might be intentionally offensive (i.e., vituperative and baited). Put differently -- it wouldn't occur to you immediately to be offended, so how could OP have meant it that way?
On the other hand, OP doesn't say "mary m was a whore" or, worse, "Jesus married a whore" explicitly. And, technically, OP doesn't even imply that mary m was a whore. Instead she assumes the standpoint that mary m was painted as a whore (whether fairly or unfairly, and by whom, we don't know from the OP's perspective) and asks if the contents of the article (the existence of this new piece of writing) were the reason for mary m to be painted as a whore.
As I said before, I think the post could be read either way. Also for the record, I'm not really looking for any admittance or apology, other than perhaps that OP could very reasonably be interpreted either way.
sorry ... it appears that i've given you an inch and now you want a mile ...
your reasoning has absolutely no relevance here ... i suspect you are letting your own personal liking for inlet get in the way of what is objectively reasonable ... i wasn't the only person who interpreted her post that way ... the OP offered very little that one could be offended unless you do in fact find that the notion of jesus having a wife is offensive ... and that of the use of the word whore but as others have pointed out - this isn't the first time she has been labeled that by any stretch ...
if the connection we postulated is not apparent to you ... then either it is 1. not correct 2. very faint and hard to determine or 3. you missed it ... again, if it is either 1 or 2 then i am willing to admit i was wrong in speaking for the OP and apologize to inlet ... but to me it was a fairly clear position ...
Sorry, there's no objective evidence either way. Things that offend Christians don't offend you, so in your personal worldview there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that this might be intentionally offensive (i.e., vituperative and baited). Put differently -- it wouldn't occur to you immediately to be offended, so how could OP have meant it that way?
On the other hand, OP doesn't say "mary m was a whore" or, worse, "Jesus married a whore" explicitly. And, technically, OP doesn't even imply that mary m was a whore. Instead she assumes the standpoint that mary m was painted as a whore (whether fairly or unfairly, and by whom, we don't know from the OP's perspective) and asks if the contents of the article (the existence of this new piece of writing) were the reason for mary m to be painted as a whore.
As I said before, I think the post could be read either way. Also for the record, I'm not really looking for any admittance or apology, other than perhaps that OP could very reasonably be interpreted either way.
sorry ... it appears that i've given you an inch and now you want a mile ...
your reasoning has absolutely no relevance here ... i suspect you are letting your own personal liking for inlet get in the way of what is objectively reasonable ... i wasn't the only person who interpreted her post that way ... the OP offered very little that one could be offended unless you do in fact find that the notion of jesus having a wife is offensive ... and that of the use of the word whore but as others have pointed out - this isn't the first time she has been labeled that by any stretch ...
if the connection we postulated is not apparent to you ... then either it is 1. not correct 2. very faint and hard to determine or 3. you missed it ... again, if it is either 1 or 2 then i am willing to admit i was wrong in speaking for the OP and apologize to inlet ... but to me it was a fairly clear position ...
Just so you properly understand, polaris. In a separate thread, I called a certain band's lead singer a corporate w----. I was told I was wrong for doing this. Obviously, that singer isn't a poster here, so I didn't think it would offend him. Yet, as I was told - he has many fans here, he deserves respect and I was told I was incorrect for that. So, I admitted it was wrong in light of that. After hearing the rationale for why I was wrong, I agreed - was poor use of words. I shouldn't have used that word.
Ironically, at the same time another poster posted a thread saying "is this why mary magdalene was painted as a whore??". I thought to myself - interesting use of the word "whore" to describe what Catholics believe to be a Saint (by the way, this aspect is lost on some here who keep saying Catholics despise her - why's she a saint?). So, I went into the thread.
When I read what was inside I was taken to a link and there was a description of basically a piece of paper from a document penned 400 years after Jesus died that said Jesus may have had a wife. They barely even mention the name - Mary, who by the way was also his Mother's name. I assume many had that name - in fact, I know that - there are a number of other Marys in the Bible. So, I sat there trying to connect the the title of the thread that used what I was told was a bad word - whore - and the information within.
Thinking...
Why did she use the term "whore" in her title? Now, I knew the moderator got upset with me using the term "whore" with corporate in front of it. Mainly because it could be considered offensive to a number of people here. Fair enough. Hmmm...
But, then I thought, well couldn't the OP's use of the term whore be considered offensive to Catholics too? Actually, I really thought - isn't the word offensive in general? Then I even started stretching it...
Why was the term even used? I mean certainly by calling someone a whore it's more inflammatory than a prostitute. Maybe that was the reason? I mean - outside of the OPs title - the article and her post had no details whatsoever on whores or prostitution in general.
Maybe the term was used to defame Jesus Christ, by saying he was married to a ( bad word ) - whore? That would certainly be offensive to Christians.
Just to note - in the Bible, they cite Mary Magdalene as a prostitute who is cleansed of her sins. She eventually becomes a Saint. The aspect there was to show Jesus was caring to even those that were considered bad - like prostitutes - AND to show that prostitutes, or sinners, can change. She's a Saint. To Catholics - she's not a whore at all. She WAS a prostitute that turned away from that lifestyle. Even if the post was meant as you claim it, you're trying to insinuate there's a grand conspiracy of sorts. That could even be thought of as offensive to Catholics I suppose.
Truth be told - like you and Moto - I don't really care too much. My purpose within...
Why is it ok to use it for some to use the term "whore", but not others? That sort of thing.
At the end of the day, like MotoDC said, we don't know the intent - we just know the word. We have no idea what the OP intended - even admins are claiming to know, but they don't. None of us do. None of us are the OP. The truth is we can ask the OP, but would she even admit it if it was purposefully baiting/trolling? And isn't baiting and trolling considered against the posting guidelines?
In my opinion, if this thread were directed towards non-Christians, this thread would have been locked long ago. But, that's my opinion.
again - i have thoroughly read all your posts on the matter ... as i've stated numerous times - i completely understand and support your argument that a certain word should not be used and that if you feel there is inconsistency on this board - you have every right to voice that ... i totally know the back story ...
but like i showed - my response was to a particular post where you cite the relevancy of the thread title based on the subject that you said that perhaps the OP was being intentionally offensive by claiming jesus married a prostitute ... all i simply was doing was trying to show you what I (and others) deemed to be the intent of the thread and the title ...
nothing more ... i have not once tried to argue your position (for/against) as it relates to whether or not "whore" is an appropriate term to be allowed and whether there should be consistency ...
The truth is we can ask the OP, but would she even admit it if it was purposefully baiting/trolling? And isn't baiting and trolling considered against the posting guidelines?
and as far as this goes ...
my objective opinion is that this doesn't even come close to be a baiting or trolling thread ... my interpretation of what is baiting/trolling has varying degrees by which i would include both of us as guilty on occasion ... i also personally believe that we need to let a lot of the small stuff go ... as individual posters and moderators ... but that's just me ... crying baiting/trolling in every instance does nothing for this board ... there are times that its obvious and even for then - i'd much rather prefer if that post just got ignored ... but hey - that's just me ...
But I stand by what I said. I do not believe for a second that Jesus was a real person and all the silly people thinking that the bible was written in the first hundred years after he died and hasn't been changed countless times just don't know their history.
Jesus was a real person it's dictated by facts of history and the Gospels were all written in the first hundred years- which is a real fact as well.
You don't have to believe Jesus was the son of man - to realize history admits he's real. Just cause you don't want him to exist, doesn't mean he didn't.
Facts must hurt, as your hate seems to seethe for Christians. Why? I have no clue.
his anger at Christians is only a outlet for his anger at himself,he's very confused and has been for a long time I would guess.
Godfather.
Oh my god, that is SO condescending and presumptuous. Why do you say such things?? :evil:
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
again - i have thoroughly read all your posts on the matter ... as i've stated numerous times - i completely understand and support your argument that a certain word should not be used and that if you feel there is inconsistency on this board - you have every right to voice that ... i totally know the back story ...
but like i showed - my response was to a particular post where you cite the relevancy of the thread title based on the subject that you said that perhaps the OP was being intentionally offensive by claiming jesus married a prostitute ... all i simply was doing was trying to show you what I (and others) deemed to be the intent of the thread and the title ...
nothing more ... i have not once tried to argue your position (for/against) as it relates to whether or not "whore" is an appropriate term to be allowed and whether there should be consistency ...
Fair enough. We're both entitled to read the the title and info within and try to understand intent - and come down on different sides. I now understand what you mean. You read it differently and don't see the intent.
Basically, I'm say Christians "could" easily be offended, with intent or not. But, it seems that doesn't matter to the powers that be. Yep, a touch inconsistent (if not worse) in my personal opinion. But, I digress.
The truth is we can ask the OP, but would she even admit it if it was purposefully baiting/trolling? And isn't baiting and trolling considered against the posting guidelines?
and as far as this goes ...
my objective opinion is that this doesn't even come close to be a baiting or trolling thread ... my interpretation of what is baiting/trolling has varying degrees by which i would include both of us as guilty on occasion ... i also personally believe that we need to let a lot of the small stuff go ... as individual posters and moderators ... but that's just me ... crying baiting/trolling in every instance does nothing for this board ... there are times that its obvious and even for then - i'd much rather prefer if that post just got ignored ... but hey - that's just me ...
Yes, but you have a bias. Which is fine. I do too. You see it your way. I see it mine. Others see it another way. Yet, if the goal is to "not offend" then if someone voices a reasonable offense which can't be readily countered, it should be heard. Why not just lock it up or edit the word?
So, what if...
just follow me here...
what if... not saying it's true... but what if...
the powers that be actually did take sides on what they deemed to be poor behavior based on the posters stance OR the person raising concerns ideology? :nono:
Crazy right? Couldn't happen. Not during election season, no one shows their colors then.
Yes, but you have a bias. Which is fine. I do too. You see it your way. I see it mine. Others see it another way. Yet, if the goal is to "not offend" then if someone voices a reasonable offense which can't be readily countered, it should be heard. Why not just lock it up or edit the word?
So, what if...
just follow me here...
what if... not saying it's true... but what if...
the powers that be actually did take sides on what they deemed to be poor behavior based on the posters stance OR the person raising concerns ideology? :nono:
Crazy right? Couldn't happen. Not during election season, no one shows their colors then.
i know there is talk of member bias on this board ... even as it comes to who wins the lotteries at shows ...
i obviously can't say one way or the other ... i can understand why someone would fee there may be a bias but i don't think there is anything that proves that ...
let's be honest - people from all ideological backgrounds get timeouts and bans here and threads locked ...
i do think we should be a little more thick-skinned here tho ... it's an internet forum for pete's sake and i think there is lots to learn here so i prefer that it is less moderated and more policed amongst ourselves ...
Yes, but you have a bias. Which is fine. I do too. You see it your way. I see it mine. Others see it another way. Yet, if the goal is to "not offend" then if someone voices a reasonable offense which can't be readily countered, it should be heard. Why not just lock it up or edit the word?
So, what if...
just follow me here...
what if... not saying it's true... but what if...
the powers that be actually did take sides on what they deemed to be poor behavior based on the posters stance OR the person raising concerns ideology? :nono:
Crazy right? Couldn't happen. Not during election season, no one shows their colors then.
i know there is talk of member bias on this board ... even as it comes to who wins the lotteries at shows ...
i obviously can't say one way or the other ... i can understand why someone would fee there may be a bias but i don't think there is anything that proves that ...
let's be honest - people from all ideological backgrounds get timeouts and bans here and threads locked ...
i do think we should be a little more thick-skinned here tho ... it's an internet forum for pete's sake and i think there is lots to learn here so i prefer that it is less moderated and more policed amongst ourselves ...
Should have been locked and or edited - just like my post was for using the same word. That's all I'm saying.
It's not consistent. At it's origins, this is evidence of a bias. Which is fine. We are all bias. But, after it's been pointed out repetitively here, why not just lock the thread or edit the title? Who cares? hmmm
Like you said, It happens all the time. I would be fine with this thread staying open with no editing if I could say what I wasn't allowed to say without editing. I mean, do you or did anyone else truly know my intent when I said what was edited for sure? Maybe I was joking?
Intent now seems to matter in these parts. I'm standing up and saying - be consistent. That is all. I understand we're all human. I also understand sometimes people take it too far. I'm just saying when it's pointed out, be consistent.
I'm not sure about homosexuality (thinking vs acting), but the New Testament is much more strict on sexual activity versus sexual thoughts:
Matthew 5:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
The word "strict" is sort of overly assertive of the points that Jesus was trying to make in these statements.
Mathew 5, a portion of The Sermon on The Mount, was where Jesus (using several different angles to get at this point) was trying to show the masses that it is not what you DO but WHAT IS IN YOUR HEART.
As such, these are not "commandments", which is why I am nit picking your "strict" comment.
This is about INTENT. Did you fast, were you celibate, and did you pray, because you were TOLD to? or are you doing it because of a genuine desire in your heart? (Matthew 6)
From wiki regarding Matthew 5 (Beatitudes portion):
"Together, the Beatitudes present a new set of ideals that focus on love and humility rather than force and exaction; they echo the highest ideals of Jesus' teachings on spirituality and compassion"
To the portion of Matthew 5 that you have quoted, there are a list of things (10 commandment items) that Jesus goes over, and he goes over them to show that it is NOT that you FOLLOW them, but WHY you follow them. Are you doing it simply because you were TOLD TO? or are you doing it because it is in your HEART?
To that point, Jesus then expands beyond the very physical deeds themselves to get to the more esoteric point of THOUGHTS SHAPING YOUR REALITY. He is starting to indicate to the masses, its not just what you DO anymore (or why you do it) but WHAT YOU THINK as well.
In some ways he is just restating the original point, but in some ways he is hinting at the power of thoughts.
Either way, to say it is "more strict" is a bit of a misnomer, because Jesus did not intend to punish you for anything. Your punishment would simply be your own unfulfilled spiritual destiny. The only "strictness" involved is in your own personal character. Do you have it in you to banish such thoughts (hate for your brother, lust outside of marriage, etc) from your heart and mind AND to act accordingly? Or do you not? The choice is yours. There is no one set to punish you explicitly should you not be willing to live up to your own best character. Only the intrinsic universal laws of god themselves will guide you (either postively or negatively according to your choices, thoughts, and actions).
RE: JASON P:
Best emoticon i've seen in a while!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
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.
.
How do "you" know someone else's intent?
I don't. I knew using that word would come back to me, but I forgot to go back and change it. I meant the context in which it was used.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
it would be nice if you could, at the very least, respect the beliefs of others.
When their silly fables and superstitions are no longer used as weapons against me and my family... maybe I'll reconsider. Until then... they can stick it.
But I stand by what I said. I do not believe for a second that Jesus was a real person and all the silly people thinking that the bible was written in the first hundred years after he died and hasn't been changed countless times just don't know their history.
That book was written, re-written, re-compiled and re-interpreted so many times that any actual traces of the original texts has been lost.
And most of it was made up anyway.
be angry at the church, fine, but being angry at all christians and disrespecting their beliefs (MOST christians are on your side, from what I understand) is counter-productive and doesn't help your cause whatsoever.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Should have been locked and or edited - just like my post was for using the same word. That's all I'm saying.
It's not consistent. At it's origins, this is evidence of a bias. Which is fine. We are all bias. But, after it's been pointed out repetitively here, why not just lock the thread or edit the title? Who cares? hmmm
Like you said, It happens all the time. I would be fine with this thread staying open with no editing if I could say what I wasn't allowed to say without editing. I mean, do you or did anyone else truly know my intent when I said what was edited for sure? Maybe I was joking?
Intent now seems to matter in these parts. I'm standing up and saying - be consistent. That is all. I understand we're all human. I also understand sometimes people take it too far. I'm just saying when it's pointed out, be consistent.
GOOD GOD. Cate didn't call MM a whore. She was asking if the article in question is the reason why many in the catholic church paint her as one. why can't you understand the difference?
If my child came home and said "Johhny's a dick", I'd be furious.
If she came home and said "Johhny pushed me to the ground-is that why all the other kids call him a dick?", I wouldn't be mad at HER.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Should have been locked and or edited - just like my post was for using the same word. That's all I'm saying.
It's not consistent. At it's origins, this is evidence of a bias. Which is fine. We are all bias. But, after it's been pointed out repetitively here, why not just lock the thread or edit the title? Who cares? hmmm
Like you said, It happens all the time. I would be fine with this thread staying open with no editing if I could say what I wasn't allowed to say without editing. I mean, do you or did anyone else truly know my intent when I said what was edited for sure? Maybe I was joking?
Intent now seems to matter in these parts. I'm standing up and saying - be consistent. That is all. I understand we're all human. I also understand sometimes people take it too far. I'm just saying when it's pointed out, be consistent.
GOOD GOD. Cate didn't call MM a whore. She was asking if the article in question is the reason why many in the catholic church paint her as one. why can't you understand the difference?
If my child came home and said "Johhny's a dick", I'd be furious.
If she came home and said "Johhny pushed me to the ground-is that why all the other kids call him a dick?", I wouldn't be mad at HER.
I think the better question would be, why did Johnny push her to the ground?
Is that why all the other children call your child a bitch?
:fp: :fp: :fp:
sorry
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think the better question would be, why did Johnny push her to the ground?
Is that why all the other children call your child a bitch?
:fp: :fp: :fp:
sorry
:evil:
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I didn't type that for her, you didn't either. It was her choice to type out the W-H-O-R-E. The same choice I made that was scolded and edited by the mods. I was fine saying that was wrong - IF it's consistently wrong.
So, back to this - yes, umm.... she did call her a whore. Look at the title of the thread. Sure, she phrased it in a rhetorical question, but she did call her a whore in doing so.
She was asking if the article in question is the reason why many in the catholic church paint her as one. why can't you understand the difference?
It's awesome to know that Cate posts under the title Hugh Freaking Dillon. I didn't know that.
The Bible mentions a woman named Mary Magdeline - but never mentions her being a prostitute. Growing up a Catholic, I know that she was also a Catholic Saint who according to the Bible was cured of 7 demons - no real mention of prostitution.
I do believe there was mention in early Catholicism (in the 500s) by one priest's homily (or sermon) of the demons being sins - including prostitution, and this is the hearsay you hear today.
To claim Jesus, even by connection, was married - is a huge stretch - this document was penned in 400 AD and there's reason to doubt a number of gnostic gospels claims (that could be a whole thread). To say he was married to a woman named Mary is another stretch. To say he was married to to Mary Magdalene is another stretch. To say she was a prostitute is another. To say she was a WHORE, and kinda put this on top of an article about Jesus being married to her is ummm... probably offensive to some.
Anyway, Mary Magdalene is a Saint in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran faiths. Did you know that?
If my child came home and said "Johhny's a dick", I'd be furious.
If she came home and said "Johhny pushed me to the ground-is that why all the other kids call him a dick?", I wouldn't be mad at HER.
That's awesome. Good for you. This example that doesn't mean anything though....
so, let's get back to message boards...
Around these parts, since we're reading words, there's no way to know intent. You can try to get it from context, but never be certain because sarcasm, baiting, trolling all exist and don't come through.
So, in a sense, we already discussed that the fact that YOU don't know her intent when she typed it? When you claimed to know her intent before, you realized you couldn't because you're not her and admitted you chose the wrong words.
But, since we're speaking intent - let's get back to the real issue - consistency by moderators.
When I said (insert rock guy) was a "corporate whore" (which was edited away by the mods and I was told was wrong - which I admitted) - was I serious or kinda joking? Did I mean the person in question was really delivering prostitute-like acts to corporations?
Just curious. Since you clearly know intent - please be the judge.
I didn't type that for her, you didn't either. It was her choice to type out the W-H-O-R-E. The same choice I made that was scolded and edited by the mods. I was fine saying that was wrong - IF it's consistently wrong.
So, back to this - yes, umm.... she did call her a whore. Look at the title of the thread. Sure, she phrased it in a rhetorical question, but she did call her a whore in doing so.
She was asking if the article in question is the reason why many in the catholic church paint her as one. why can't you understand the difference?
It's awesome to know that Cate posts under the title Hugh Freaking Dillon. I didn't know that.
The Bible mentions a woman named Mary Magdeline - but never mentions her being a prostitute. Growing up a Catholic, I know that she was also a Catholic Saint who according to the Bible was cured of 7 demons - no real mention of prostitution.
I do believe there was mention in early Catholicism (in the 500s) by one priest's homily (or sermon) of the demons being sins - including prostitution, and this is the hearsay you hear today.
To claim Jesus, even by connection, was married - is a huge stretch - this document was penned in 400 AD and there's reason to doubt a number of gnostic gospels claims (that could be a whole thread). To say he was married to a woman named Mary is another. To say he was married to to Mary Magdalene is another. To say she was a prositute is another. To say she was a WHORE, and kinda put this on top of an article about Jesus being married to her is ummm... probably offensive to some.
Anyway, Mary Magdalene is a Saint in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran faiths. Did you know that?
If my child came home and said "Johhny's a dick", I'd be furious.
If she came home and said "Johhny pushed me to the ground-is that why all the other kids call him a dick?", I wouldn't be mad at HER.
That's awesome. Good for you. This example that doesn't mean anything though....
so, let's get back to message boards...
Around these parts, since we're reading words, there's no way to know intent. You can try to get it from context, but never be certain because sarcasm, baiting, trolling all exist and don't come through.
So, in a sense, we already discussed that the fact that YOU don't know her intent when she typed it? When you claimed to know her intent before, you realized you couldn't because you're not her and admitted you chose the wrong words.
But, since we're speaking intent - let's get back to the real issue - consistency by moderators.
When I said (insert rock guy) was a "corporate whore" (which was edited away by the mods and I was told was wrong - which I admitted) - was I serious or kinda joking? Did I mean the person in question was really delivering prostitute-like acts to corporations?
Just curious. Since you clearly know intent - please be the judge.
I said I didn't know her intent, that my words were chosen incorrectly. that being said, read the title of the thread. to me, it's pretty easy to understand.
if her thread title read as your post did towards Ed, a STATEMENT, then yes, it should be locked, but it wasn't because it didn't read that way. to me it's quite clear, you see it differently (probably for the singular reason of being warned for using the same word, albeit in a completely different context-am I wrong?).
maybe it's time to move on from this?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Is anyone actually enjoying discussing whether or not it's proper to "call MM a whore"? :roll:
My first thought when I saw this thread was why anyone ever wanted to think that Jesus was celibate. There is no reason at all to have ever thought that. It's not like he was a Catholic priest.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I didn't type that for her, you didn't either. It was her choice to type out the W-H-O-R-E. The same choice I made that was scolded and edited by the mods. I was fine saying that was wrong - IF it's consistently wrong.
So, back to this - yes, umm.... she did call her a whore. Look at the title of the thread. Sure, she phrased it in a rhetorical question, but she did call her a whore in doing so.
She was asking if the article in question is the reason why many in the catholic church paint her as one. why can't you understand the difference?
It's awesome to know that Cate posts under the title Hugh Freaking Dillon. I didn't know that.
The Bible mentions a woman named Mary Magdeline - but never mentions her being a prostitute. Growing up a Catholic, I know that she was also a Catholic Saint who according to the Bible was cured of 7 demons - no real mention of prostitution.
I do believe there was mention in early Catholicism (in the 500s) by one priest's homily (or sermon) of the demons being sins - including prostitution, and this is the hearsay you hear today.
To claim Jesus, even by connection, was married - is a huge stretch - this document was penned in 400 AD and there's reason to doubt a number of gnostic gospels claims (that could be a whole thread). To say he was married to a woman named Mary is another stretch. To say he was married to to Mary Magdalene is another stretch. To say she was a prostitute is another. To say she was a WHORE, and kinda put this on top of an article about Jesus being married to her is ummm... probably offensive to some.
Anyway, Mary Magdalene is a Saint in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran faiths. Did you know that?
If my child came home and said "Johhny's a dick", I'd be furious.
If she came home and said "Johhny pushed me to the ground-is that why all the other kids call him a dick?", I wouldn't be mad at HER.
That's awesome. Good for you. This example that doesn't mean anything though....
so, let's get back to message boards...
Around these parts, since we're reading words, there's no way to know intent. You can try to get it from context, but never be certain because sarcasm, baiting, trolling all exist and don't come through.
So, in a sense, we already discussed that the fact that YOU don't know her intent when she typed it? When you claimed to know her intent before, you realized you couldn't because you're not her and admitted you chose the wrong words.
But, since we're speaking intent - let's get back to the real issue - consistency by moderators.
When I said (insert rock guy) was a "corporate whore" (which was edited away by the mods and I was told was wrong - which I admitted) - was I serious or kinda joking? Did I mean the person in question was really delivering prostitute-like acts to corporations?
Just curious. Since you clearly know intent - please be the judge.
Here's the real issue. You came in here and called Ed a corporate whore. You were told it was not polite; it was rude and insulting. Name-calling is never ok here....and especially AT YOUR HOST. You can disagree with any action any band member makes or takes but you cannot come in here and disrespect them. EVER.
It's time for you to move past this. It's done and over and I'm sure you'll follow the Posting Guidelines from now on. CateFrances did not call MM a whore. That's the judgment on this thread and why it was still open. Now it's so derailed that it's not worth leaving open and that may have been the intent. Enough.
Comments
sorry ... it appears that i've given you an inch and now you want a mile ...
your reasoning has absolutely no relevance here ... i suspect you are letting your own personal liking for inlet get in the way of what is objectively reasonable ... i wasn't the only person who interpreted her post that way ... the OP offered very little that one could be offended unless you do in fact find that the notion of jesus having a wife is offensive ... and that of the use of the word whore but as others have pointed out - this isn't the first time she has been labeled that by any stretch ...
if the connection we postulated is not apparent to you ... then either it is 1. not correct 2. very faint and hard to determine or 3. you missed it ... again, if it is either 1 or 2 then i am willing to admit i was wrong in speaking for the OP and apologize to inlet ... but to me it was a fairly clear position ...
Just so you properly understand, polaris. In a separate thread, I called a certain band's lead singer a corporate w----. I was told I was wrong for doing this. Obviously, that singer isn't a poster here, so I didn't think it would offend him. Yet, as I was told - he has many fans here, he deserves respect and I was told I was incorrect for that. So, I admitted it was wrong in light of that. After hearing the rationale for why I was wrong, I agreed - was poor use of words. I shouldn't have used that word.
Ironically, at the same time another poster posted a thread saying "is this why mary magdalene was painted as a whore??". I thought to myself - interesting use of the word "whore" to describe what Catholics believe to be a Saint (by the way, this aspect is lost on some here who keep saying Catholics despise her - why's she a saint?). So, I went into the thread.
When I read what was inside I was taken to a link and there was a description of basically a piece of paper from a document penned 400 years after Jesus died that said Jesus may have had a wife. They barely even mention the name - Mary, who by the way was also his Mother's name. I assume many had that name - in fact, I know that - there are a number of other Marys in the Bible. So, I sat there trying to connect the the title of the thread that used what I was told was a bad word - whore - and the information within.
Thinking...
Why did she use the term "whore" in her title? Now, I knew the moderator got upset with me using the term "whore" with corporate in front of it. Mainly because it could be considered offensive to a number of people here. Fair enough. Hmmm...
But, then I thought, well couldn't the OP's use of the term whore be considered offensive to Catholics too? Actually, I really thought - isn't the word offensive in general? Then I even started stretching it...
Why was the term even used? I mean certainly by calling someone a whore it's more inflammatory than a prostitute. Maybe that was the reason? I mean - outside of the OPs title - the article and her post had no details whatsoever on whores or prostitution in general.
Maybe the term was used to defame Jesus Christ, by saying he was married to a ( bad word ) - whore? That would certainly be offensive to Christians.
Just to note - in the Bible, they cite Mary Magdalene as a prostitute who is cleansed of her sins. She eventually becomes a Saint. The aspect there was to show Jesus was caring to even those that were considered bad - like prostitutes - AND to show that prostitutes, or sinners, can change. She's a Saint. To Catholics - she's not a whore at all. She WAS a prostitute that turned away from that lifestyle. Even if the post was meant as you claim it, you're trying to insinuate there's a grand conspiracy of sorts. That could even be thought of as offensive to Catholics I suppose.
Truth be told - like you and Moto - I don't really care too much. My purpose within...
Why is it ok to use it for some to use the term "whore", but not others? That sort of thing.
At the end of the day, like MotoDC said, we don't know the intent - we just know the word. We have no idea what the OP intended - even admins are claiming to know, but they don't. None of us do. None of us are the OP. The truth is we can ask the OP, but would she even admit it if it was purposefully baiting/trolling? And isn't baiting and trolling considered against the posting guidelines?
In my opinion, if this thread were directed towards non-Christians, this thread would have been locked long ago. But, that's my opinion.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
again - i have thoroughly read all your posts on the matter ... as i've stated numerous times - i completely understand and support your argument that a certain word should not be used and that if you feel there is inconsistency on this board - you have every right to voice that ... i totally know the back story ...
but like i showed - my response was to a particular post where you cite the relevancy of the thread title based on the subject that you said that perhaps the OP was being intentionally offensive by claiming jesus married a prostitute ... all i simply was doing was trying to show you what I (and others) deemed to be the intent of the thread and the title ...
nothing more ... i have not once tried to argue your position (for/against) as it relates to whether or not "whore" is an appropriate term to be allowed and whether there should be consistency ...
and as far as this goes ...
my objective opinion is that this doesn't even come close to be a baiting or trolling thread ... my interpretation of what is baiting/trolling has varying degrees by which i would include both of us as guilty on occasion ... i also personally believe that we need to let a lot of the small stuff go ... as individual posters and moderators ... but that's just me ... crying baiting/trolling in every instance does nothing for this board ... there are times that its obvious and even for then - i'd much rather prefer if that post just got ignored ... but hey - that's just me ...
Fair enough. We're both entitled to read the the title and info within and try to understand intent - and come down on different sides. I now understand what you mean. You read it differently and don't see the intent.
Basically, I'm say Christians "could" easily be offended, with intent or not. But, it seems that doesn't matter to the powers that be. Yep, a touch inconsistent (if not worse) in my personal opinion. But, I digress.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Yes, but you have a bias. Which is fine. I do too. You see it your way. I see it mine. Others see it another way. Yet, if the goal is to "not offend" then if someone voices a reasonable offense which can't be readily countered, it should be heard. Why not just lock it up or edit the word?
So, what if...
just follow me here...
what if... not saying it's true... but what if...
the powers that be actually did take sides on what they deemed to be poor behavior based on the posters stance OR the person raising concerns ideology? :nono:
Crazy right? Couldn't happen. Not during election season, no one shows their colors then.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
i know there is talk of member bias on this board ... even as it comes to who wins the lotteries at shows ...
i obviously can't say one way or the other ... i can understand why someone would fee there may be a bias but i don't think there is anything that proves that ...
let's be honest - people from all ideological backgrounds get timeouts and bans here and threads locked ...
i do think we should be a little more thick-skinned here tho ... it's an internet forum for pete's sake and i think there is lots to learn here so i prefer that it is less moderated and more policed amongst ourselves ...
Should have been locked and or edited - just like my post was for using the same word. That's all I'm saying.
It's not consistent. At it's origins, this is evidence of a bias. Which is fine. We are all bias. But, after it's been pointed out repetitively here, why not just lock the thread or edit the title? Who cares? hmmm
Like you said, It happens all the time. I would be fine with this thread staying open with no editing if I could say what I wasn't allowed to say without editing. I mean, do you or did anyone else truly know my intent when I said what was edited for sure? Maybe I was joking?
Intent now seems to matter in these parts. I'm standing up and saying - be consistent. That is all. I understand we're all human. I also understand sometimes people take it too far. I'm just saying when it's pointed out, be consistent.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
The word "strict" is sort of overly assertive of the points that Jesus was trying to make in these statements.
Mathew 5, a portion of The Sermon on The Mount, was where Jesus (using several different angles to get at this point) was trying to show the masses that it is not what you DO but WHAT IS IN YOUR HEART.
As such, these are not "commandments", which is why I am nit picking your "strict" comment.
This is about INTENT. Did you fast, were you celibate, and did you pray, because you were TOLD to? or are you doing it because of a genuine desire in your heart? (Matthew 6)
From wiki regarding Matthew 5 (Beatitudes portion):
"Together, the Beatitudes present a new set of ideals that focus on love and humility rather than force and exaction; they echo the highest ideals of Jesus' teachings on spirituality and compassion"
To the portion of Matthew 5 that you have quoted, there are a list of things (10 commandment items) that Jesus goes over, and he goes over them to show that it is NOT that you FOLLOW them, but WHY you follow them. Are you doing it simply because you were TOLD TO? or are you doing it because it is in your HEART?
To that point, Jesus then expands beyond the very physical deeds themselves to get to the more esoteric point of THOUGHTS SHAPING YOUR REALITY. He is starting to indicate to the masses, its not just what you DO anymore (or why you do it) but WHAT YOU THINK as well.
In some ways he is just restating the original point, but in some ways he is hinting at the power of thoughts.
Either way, to say it is "more strict" is a bit of a misnomer, because Jesus did not intend to punish you for anything. Your punishment would simply be your own unfulfilled spiritual destiny. The only "strictness" involved is in your own personal character. Do you have it in you to banish such thoughts (hate for your brother, lust outside of marriage, etc) from your heart and mind AND to act accordingly? Or do you not? The choice is yours. There is no one set to punish you explicitly should you not be willing to live up to your own best character. Only the intrinsic universal laws of god themselves will guide you (either postively or negatively according to your choices, thoughts, and actions).
RE: JASON P:
Best emoticon i've seen in a while!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I don't. I knew using that word would come back to me, but I forgot to go back and change it. I meant the context in which it was used.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
be angry at the church, fine, but being angry at all christians and disrespecting their beliefs (MOST christians are on your side, from what I understand) is counter-productive and doesn't help your cause whatsoever.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
GOOD GOD. Cate didn't call MM a whore. She was asking if the article in question is the reason why many in the catholic church paint her as one. why can't you understand the difference?
If my child came home and said "Johhny's a dick", I'd be furious.
If she came home and said "Johhny pushed me to the ground-is that why all the other kids call him a dick?", I wouldn't be mad at HER.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I think the better question would be, why did Johnny push her to the ground?
Is that why all the other children call your child a bitch?
:fp: :fp: :fp:
sorry
If I opened it now would you not understand?
:evil:
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I didn't type that for her, you didn't either. It was her choice to type out the W-H-O-R-E. The same choice I made that was scolded and edited by the mods. I was fine saying that was wrong - IF it's consistently wrong.
So, back to this - yes, umm.... she did call her a whore. Look at the title of the thread. Sure, she phrased it in a rhetorical question, but she did call her a whore in doing so.
It's awesome to know that Cate posts under the title Hugh Freaking Dillon. I didn't know that.
The Bible mentions a woman named Mary Magdeline - but never mentions her being a prostitute. Growing up a Catholic, I know that she was also a Catholic Saint who according to the Bible was cured of 7 demons - no real mention of prostitution.
I do believe there was mention in early Catholicism (in the 500s) by one priest's homily (or sermon) of the demons being sins - including prostitution, and this is the hearsay you hear today.
To claim Jesus, even by connection, was married - is a huge stretch - this document was penned in 400 AD and there's reason to doubt a number of gnostic gospels claims (that could be a whole thread). To say he was married to a woman named Mary is another stretch. To say he was married to to Mary Magdalene is another stretch. To say she was a prostitute is another. To say she was a WHORE, and kinda put this on top of an article about Jesus being married to her is ummm... probably offensive to some.
Anyway, Mary Magdalene is a Saint in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran faiths. Did you know that?
That's awesome. Good for you. This example that doesn't mean anything though....
so, let's get back to message boards...
Around these parts, since we're reading words, there's no way to know intent. You can try to get it from context, but never be certain because sarcasm, baiting, trolling all exist and don't come through.
So, in a sense, we already discussed that the fact that YOU don't know her intent when she typed it? When you claimed to know her intent before, you realized you couldn't because you're not her and admitted you chose the wrong words.
But, since we're speaking intent - let's get back to the real issue - consistency by moderators.
When I said (insert rock guy) was a "corporate whore" (which was edited away by the mods and I was told was wrong - which I admitted) - was I serious or kinda joking? Did I mean the person in question was really delivering prostitute-like acts to corporations?
Just curious. Since you clearly know intent - please be the judge.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I said I didn't know her intent, that my words were chosen incorrectly. that being said, read the title of the thread. to me, it's pretty easy to understand.
if her thread title read as your post did towards Ed, a STATEMENT, then yes, it should be locked, but it wasn't because it didn't read that way. to me it's quite clear, you see it differently (probably for the singular reason of being warned for using the same word, albeit in a completely different context-am I wrong?).
maybe it's time to move on from this?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
it's drawing a very easy to understand parallel between the issues. I thought it was pretty clear. the attempted condescension is unnecessary.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
My first thought when I saw this thread was why anyone ever wanted to think that Jesus was celibate. There is no reason at all to have ever thought that. It's not like he was a Catholic priest.
Here's the real issue. You came in here and called Ed a corporate whore. You were told it was not polite; it was rude and insulting. Name-calling is never ok here....and especially AT YOUR HOST. You can disagree with any action any band member makes or takes but you cannot come in here and disrespect them. EVER.
It's time for you to move past this. It's done and over and I'm sure you'll follow the Posting Guidelines from now on. CateFrances did not call MM a whore. That's the judgment on this thread and why it was still open. Now it's so derailed that it's not worth leaving open and that may have been the intent. Enough.
Admin