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

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

let's be honest - people from all ideological backgrounds get timeouts and bans here and threads locked ...

To that statement, the Order of the Jedi objects.

DriftingByTheStorm

MotoDC wrote:

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!

Hugh Freaking Dillon

inlet13 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

inlet13 wrote:

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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

Hugh Freaking Dillon

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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:

inlet13

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

GOOD GOD. Cate didn't call MM a whore.

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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?

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

inlet13 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

GOOD GOD. Cate didn't call MM a whore.

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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?

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

inlet13 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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....

it's drawing a very easy to understand parallel between the issues. I thought it was pretty clear. the attempted condescension is unnecessary.

PJ_Soul

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.

Kat

inlet13 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

GOOD GOD. Cate didn't call MM a whore.

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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?

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

Admin