Mary Magdalene.

[Khatru]

Actually, Shakes, the standard operating procedure for debate is for those debating to be at least on the same wavelength with each other.  That is generally not the case here, where one side seems to limit the debate to a single aspect of life, the other having a broader outlook.

You mean one side is firmly anchored in reality while the other side is away with the fairies?

[Shaker]

From what you have said in your posts suggests that you don't accept that reality is anything other than naturalistic.  If that is the case, you don't understand that there could be other aspects to reality.

There could be anything, but who but a credulous clown would accept it without evidence and a methodology for evaluating it? This is what you don't seem to understand.

Might-bes, maybes and could-bes are not a substitute for actually find out how things really are. You need a method for that, and you don't have one. Or if you do, you're remarkably coy about sharing it, for some reason best known to yourself.

[Gordon]

From what you have said in your posts suggests that you don't accept that reality is anything other than naturalistic.  If that is the case, you don't understand that there could be other aspects to reality.

Then, just for once, instead of claiming these 'other aspects to reality' do us a favour and take the time to describe them and also explain on what basis we should feel prepared to acknowledge them: such as by noting their characteristics, limitations, parameters, effects etc etc.

[Shaker]

Best of, Gord 

[Khatru]

From what you have said in your posts suggests that you don't accept that reality is anything other than naturalistic.  If that is the case, you don't understand that there could be other aspects to reality.

Other aspects to our reality?

If you're referring to those areas that science explains with provisional hypotheses like Dark Matter/Dark Energy, then they are quite possibly, on the cusp of a greater understanding.  However, that understanding will come to us by the scientific method and not by closing our eyes and muttering at the ceiling light.

If, however, you're referring to a reality that exists outside of our own reality and that we can only access it by choosing the right god(s) to worship, it's going to take a bit more than your assertions to make me accept it as real.

[Jack Knave]

Here is a thought for you.

If you can't say anything sensible then don't say anything at all.

Why is that not sensible?

May be she couldn't be seen in such a group because of cultural biases and so dressed as a man; and being tall, as the nick name implies, she was able to get away with it.

Nothing wrong in thinking outside the box.

[Shaker]

Here is a thought for you.

If you can't say anything sensible then don't say anything at all.

If you followed your own advice you wouldn't be here in the first place.

[Jack Knave]

Well Jack, I have to say you remind me of Floo and her stunted, was Jesus gay. You want to accuse or slander for kicks? You got the evidence for your stunted notion? No of course you don't. I would more easily believe you to be a cross dresser.

Mary was called Magdalene because she came from the town of Magdala. A town north of Tiberias along the coast of the Sea of Galilee. Several women followed Christ after they were healed. Mary was one that has demons cast out of her. But goof off off come along and tell us Christ was gay but married Mary and moved to France to get away from his crossdressing lover John. Pathetic and stunted to the max.

There's no proof that she was from Magdala. And in the earliest gospel, Mark, she is called Mary Magdalene not Mary of....and as I said JC gave his prized followers nicknames, like all top gang godfathers do.

[Sassy]

Thanks for taking my reply as it was meant. Referring to lack of knowledge or your part and not an insult.

Why is that not sensible?

May be she couldn't be seen in such a group because of cultural biases and so dressed as a man; and being tall, as the nick name implies, she was able to get away with it.

Nothing wrong in thinking outside the box.

It was as wrong to dress as a man as it is to be a prostitute.

King James Bible
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Hence there was no way that MM could be dressed as a man or man dressed as a woman.

[Sassy]

If you followed your own advice you wouldn't be here in the first place.

Are you saying NOTHING here is sensible... Then perhaps you should follow the advice I originally gave.
Since you said nothing of value in reply.

[Shaker]

Are you saying NOTHING here is sensible...

There's lots here that's sensible - we have some highly intelligent members who think clearly and write beautifully.

There's just nothing sensible from you.

[Jack Knave]

So, you are arguing against something that you don't fully understand.

He is pointing to the value of the logic of his statement not the value-truth of the content of that logic statement. You can't slander someone who is dead regardless of who that person may have or may not have been or what they stood for.

[Jack Knave]

Thanks for taking my reply as it was meant. Referring to lack of knowledge or your part and not an insult.

It was as wrong to dress as a man as it is to be a prostitute.

King James Bible
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Hence there was no way that MM could be dressed as a man or man dressed as a woman.

You haven't said where that quote is from.

JC was always breaking the rules, that was one of the reasons why the high priests and Pharisees didn't like him.

[Leonard James]

There's lots here that's sensible - we have some highly intelligent members who think clearly and write beautifully.

There's just nothing sensible from you.

That is because Sass doesn't do sense at all ... she just spouts scripture like a robot as if that settles everything.

[Rhiannon]

That is because Sass doesn't do sense at all ... she just spouts scripture like a robot as if that settles everything.

I don't mind not sensible. I do mind spiteful.

[Leonard James]

I don't mind not sensible. I do mind spiteful.

I don't like either. 

[Sassy]

There's lots here that's sensible - we have some highly intelligent members who think clearly and write beautifully.

There's just nothing sensible from you.

We all know you are lost when it comes to religion.
Seems the only thing you have been able to show is sarcasm and insult, no marks for scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to intelligent replies for you.

Guess some of us are better off than you when it comes to replies and intelligence concerning the religious matters of the world. Do you want help scraping yourself off the floor where you now lie exposed and face down in the mud of your own creation and ignorance?

[Leonard James]

We all know you are lost when it comes to religion.

We all know you are lost when it comes to any version of religion that clashes with your own.

Seems the only thing you have been able to show is sarcasm and insult, no marks for scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to intelligent replies for you.

Pot, kettle, black.

Guess some of us are better off than you when it comes to replies and intelligence concerning the religious matters of the world.

Apart from your replies and intelligence.

Do you want help scraping yourself off the floor where you now lie exposed and face down in the mud of your own creation and ignorance?

This remark applies to you far more than anybody else on this forum, Sass.

[floo]

Getting back to MM, if Jesus wasn't gay and in a sexual relationship with the disciple whom he loved, I hope he was in consensual sexual relationship with Mary, or even married to her.

[Brownie]

Very nice of you to wish that for him, floo.

[floo]

Very nice of you to wish that for him, floo.

Yep.

[Hope]

The terrible thing about Mary Magdalene was the slander against her by the Western church linking her with the woman caught in adultery. Because of the medieval church's attitude to sex it devalued her, and hence the role she plays in the resurrection narratives, right through to modern times. And of course it also gave license for Christians to paint some porn in the name of religious art.

Yet another triumph from the church when it comes to women and sex then.

Not sure that linking her with the woman caught in adultery was/is in any way slanderous.  This would match Jesus' attitude to social mores of that time, something that was reflected in his appearing to women before men.  There are plenty of examples of someone being rescued from this kind of sitiation and joining the people who had saved them.

[Hope]

The disturbing part of this particular myth is that it's all about the woman caught in adultery.   Where is the man?  Why isn't he getting stoned?

Precisely, Khat; if you read the passage you will realise that that is part of the argument that Jesus uses to exonerate the woman.  In other words, your angst is about 2000 years late!!

[jeremyp]

Precisely, Khat; if you read the passage you will realise that that is part of the argument that Jesus uses to exonerate the woman.  In other words, your angst is about 2000 years late!!

Evidence please.

[Hope]

Precisely, Khat; if you read the passage you will realise that that is part of the argument that Jesus uses to exonerate the woman.  In other words, your angst is about 2000 years late!!

Evidence please.

“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”