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

hostis

Kat wrote:

There's also room for discussion about priests being celibate or being allowed to get married. The basis for priests being celibate was that Jesus wasn't married, isn't it? So this new recent revelation/possible proof of something would affect that too, wouldn't it? The discussion is yours here in AMT. Please keep it on the high road.

RC Priests aren't allowed to be married because they are married to the church.... and sexual activity is restricted to marriage, ergo, if you are not married you must remain celibate

hedonist

Kat wrote:

There's also room for discussion about priests being celibate or being allowed to get married. The basis for priests being celibate was that Jesus wasn't married, isn't it? So this new recent revelation/possible proof of something would affect that too, wouldn't it? The discussion is yours here in AMT. Please keep it on the high road.

"You take the high road and I'll take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland before ye!" :P

The celibacy issue makes me wonder...sure, some choose to be, both inside and outside of religion. It's the to-the-T followings that can be a problem. Aren't those constraints going against...human nature?

And, are priests supposed to live their lives as Jesus did, or is it more about sharing who he was?

Does it matter if Jesus got it on with MM as her husband or as her john?

hedonist

hostis wrote:

Kat wrote:

There's also room for discussion about priests being celibate or being allowed to get married. The basis for priests being celibate was that Jesus wasn't married, isn't it? So this new recent revelation/possible proof of something would affect that too, wouldn't it? The discussion is yours here in AMT. Please keep it on the high road.

RC Priests aren't allowed to be married because they are married to the church.... and sexual activity is restricted to marriage, ergo, if you are not married you must remain celibate

Makes sense, hostis, as you explain this.

But it also raises the question - if it's OK to be married to the church, why is it not OK to be married to someone of the same sex?

hostis

hedonist wrote:

hostis wrote:

Kat wrote:

There's also room for discussion about priests being celibate or being allowed to get married. The basis for priests being celibate was that Jesus wasn't married, isn't it? So this new recent revelation/possible proof of something would affect that too, wouldn't it? The discussion is yours here in AMT. Please keep it on the high road.

RC Priests aren't allowed to be married because they are married to the church.... and sexual activity is restricted to marriage, ergo, if you are not married you must remain celibate

Makes sense, hostis, as you explain this.

But it also raises the question - if it's OK to be married to the church, why is it not OK to be married to someone of the same sex?

Basically, because only a man and woman in marriage should conceive a child, anything else should not be accepted by the church.

I know from direct experience that a gay friend bumped into one of the nuns from our school, and she was tolerant and understanding of him being gay because "he needed compassion, empathy and understanding because his soul was going to hell for being gay"....

inlet13

hostis wrote:

Basically, because only a man and woman in marriage should conceive a child, anything else should not be accepted by the church.

I know from direct experience that a gay friend bumped into one of the nuns from our school, and she was tolerant and understanding of him being gay because "he needed compassion, empathy and understanding because his soul was going to hell for being gay"....

I don't think you meant this, but so others don't get misled, this isn't what Catholics believe from what I understand. This nun was off.

They believe that acting on homosexuality is a sin. Not that it is inherently a sin in and of itself.

Acting on it is a sin to them. Just like acting on anything on sex outside of marriage is considered to them to be a sin.

And it's not a mortal sin either.

MookiesLaw

polaris_x wrote:

FattyFatCat wrote:

Funny thing is, if it had been said about any random Muslim, the thread would have been locked in 2 seconds, and the member banned for eternity...but Jesus? Mock away, right mods?

But you're right.... its just not worth the bullshit to bullshit with bullshitters in a bullshit-moderated forum.

For posting guidelines, see Sharia.

dude ... your post got locked because you and others exhibited a level of class that is shameful ... and you did it twice ...

a lot of shit gets said on this forum and i don't necessarily agree with the majority of locked/deleted threads but yours yesterday was offensive - in a way, i would probably have preferred if the thread remained open so we can see what kind of people some really are ...

The ironic part... it was Americans making fun of a foreigner who died exercising their freedom of speech.

FattyFatCat

?

MotoDC

polaris_x wrote:

i think it's a fair and reasonable conclusion which does not require significant assumption but if she did not intend that at all ... then i'm more than happy to admit i'm wrong and apologize ...

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.

MotoDC

inlet13 wrote:

hostis wrote:

Basically, because only a man and woman in marriage should conceive a child, anything else should not be accepted by the church.

I know from direct experience that a gay friend bumped into one of the nuns from our school, and she was tolerant and understanding of him being gay because "he needed compassion, empathy and understanding because his soul was going to hell for being gay"....

I don't think you meant this, but so others don't get misled, this isn't what Catholics believe from what I understand. This nun was off.

They believe that acting on homosexuality is a sin. Not that it is inherently a sin in and of itself.

Acting on it is a sin to them. Just like acting on anything on sex outside of marriage is considered to them to be a sin.

And it's not a mortal sin either.

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."

cincybearcat

MotoDC wrote:

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."

well shit, I might as well go the distance!!!

MotoDC

cincybearcat wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

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."

well shit, I might as well go the distance!!!

polaris_x

MotoDC wrote:

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 ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

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.

polaris_x

inlet ...

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 ...

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

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 ...

PJ_Soul

Godfather. wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

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:

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet ...

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.

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

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 ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.