NationStates

Punished UMN wrote:The last three pages have been bickering about something that isn't really of any importance at all. Mary was probably fourteen to sixteen when Christ was conceived, which was normal for the time and doesn't even violate canon law in the modern Catholic Church. I don't know why this is even an argument.

The New California Republic wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044#009 comes closest.

Sure, but like I said I already discounted that, since in this context it's merely mentioning something that doesn't seem to meet that threshold, and if it did then it would have likely been reported already by Tarsonis.

Sundiata wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:The last three pages have been bickering about something that isn't really of any importance at all. Mary was probably fourteen to sixteen when Christ was conceived, which was normal for the time and doesn't even violate canon law in the modern Catholic Church. I don't know why this is even an argument.

It's not so much an argument as a reason for legitimate questions. For example, depending upon when Christ was conceived, why was he concieved specifically when he was?

Sundiata wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:The last three pages have been bickering about something that isn't really of any importance at all. Mary was probably fourteen to sixteen when Christ was conceived, which was normal for the time and doesn't even violate canon law in the modern Catholic Church. I don't know why this is even an argument.

It's not so much an argument as a reason for legitimate questions. For example, depending upon when Christ was conceived, why was he concieved specifically when he was?

Tarsonis wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Sure, but like I said I already discounted that, since in this context it's merely mentioning something that doesn't seem to meet that threshold, and if it did then it would have likely been reported already by Tarsonis.

Moderators are responsible for the NationStates site. We have no jurisdiction over any third-party sites, forums, or groups, and cannot guarantee their content. Where Moderators participate in off-site groups, they do not act in an official NationStates capacity. Actions that take place outside NationStates should be reported to the administrators of that site or to law enforcement. They may additionally be reported to NationStates via a Getting Help Request, but we will not take action except in the extraordinary case that a user is judged to pose an unacceptable ongoing risk to users of the NationStates site or the site itself. Please don't bring non-NationStates business to the NationStates forums or the Getting Help page.

The New California Republic wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:

Moderators are responsible for the NationStates site. We have no jurisdiction over any third-party sites, forums, or groups, and cannot guarantee their content. Where Moderators participate in off-site groups, they do not act in an official NationStates capacity. Actions that take place outside NationStates should be reported to the administrators of that site or to law enforcement. They may additionally be reported to NationStates via a Getting Help Request, but we will not take action except in the extraordinary case that a user is judged to pose an unacceptable ongoing risk to users of the NationStates site or the site itself. Please don't bring non-NationStates business to the NationStates forums or the Getting Help page.

That's saying don't go to the Moderators if there are issues with non-nationstates stuff, it isn't saying that you can't post non-nationstates stuff here. If we couldn't post non-nationstates stuff here then people would be absolutely barred from saying anything that is going on in their lives, and a quick glance at TET and other threads shows that is patently not the case. You are interpreting the underlined completely incorrectly.

Old Tyrannia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:That's saying don't go to the Moderators if there are issues with non-nationstates stuff, it isn't saying that you can't post non-nationstates stuff here. If we couldn't post non-nationstates stuff here then people would be absolutely barred from saying anything that is going on in their lives, and a quick glance at TET and other threads shows that is patently not the case. You are interpreting the underlined completely incorrectly.

For what it's worth, and I am not saying that my opinion should be taken as authoritative or binding on the current moderation team at all, this is certainly how I would have interpreted that section of the rules as a moderator. I don't believe there's any rule against referring to off-site conversations in the forums per se.

Tarsonis wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:For what it's worth, and I am not saying that my opinion should be taken as authoritative or binding on the current moderation team at all, this is certainly how I would have interpreted that section of the rules as a moderator. I don't believe there's any rule against referring to off-site conversations in the forums per se.

I know you got me on ignore, but what about bringing an external conflict onto the forums? Not merely referencing it, but continuing it. Cause that seems to be the case here.

Tarsonis wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Things also occurred on a discord server he was apart of.
So there is more to this, but that's all I shall say.

Offsite issues are offsite. It's expressly against the rules to bring them here.

Tarsonis wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:For what it's worth, and I am not saying that my opinion should be taken as authoritative or binding on the current moderation team at all, this is certainly how I would have interpreted that section of the rules as a moderator. I don't believe there's any rule against referring to off-site conversations in the forums per se.

I know you got me on ignore, but what about bringing an external conflict onto the forums? Not merely referencing it, but continuing it. Cause that seems to be the case here.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
I know you got me on ignore, but what about bringing an external conflict onto the forums? Not merely referencing it, but continuing it. Cause that seems to be the case here.

Can we stop this please?

Off-site evidence can't be used to support a report on potentially actionable behaviour; but there's no reason why off-site animosity can't continue in NationStates, nor could we realistically stop this from being the case even if we wanted to.

However, as a matter of etiquette, it reflects poorly on parties who insist on openly carrying an off-site grievance to NS.

Summed up, Old Tyrannia is essentially correct, and I would be grateful if we could drop a topic that has nothing to do with the thread.

Celritannia wrote:I don't understand why your so adamant to refuse to accept a common concept of ancient palestine.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Arch, not saying I agree with the hypocritical views of some Christians, but there is a vast difference between God willing a 13-15 year old to become pregnant and a 40 year old man raping an 9-12 year old girl. Mary's birth being virginal explicitly means no sex was involved whatsoever. Aisha is another story entirely; specifically, a story of statutory rape. The physical act was involved and that makes all the difference in the world.

And yes, I'm aware that historically child marriage and statutory rape were common practices throughout human history up until recently. I'm not excusing or ignoring any of that. It's a disturbing fact, but a fact nonetheless. Yet as far as the Virgin Birth of Christ is concerned, this really isn't relevant. If we were talking about the kids Joseph and Mary had after Jesus was born then it would be relevant but as it stands you're equating oranges to tangerines.

[23]Though the author of the book of Hebrews states that "Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever" (1) it is clear that humankind's image of Christ has changed throughout the ages. Jaroslav Pelikan, author of Jesus Through the Centuries, writes: "It has been characteristic of each age of history to depict Jesus in accordance with its own character." (2) In "The Dream of the Rood," an Anglo-Saxon poem written in the early Middle Ages, Christ's death and burial is described in a manner which is startlingly different from the original biblical accounts. In order to emphasize the momentous triumph of the crucifixion, the poet of "The Dream of the Rood" depicts Christ as an aggressive warrior who boldly confronts and defeats sin. This depiction is consistent with the honor and courage so highly valued in the early medieval culture.

Salus Maior wrote:

Celritannia wrote:I don't understand why your so adamant to refuse to accept a common concept of ancient palestine.

Technically, Palestine didn't exist yet.

It was Judea during the time of Jesus. The region wouldn't be called Palestine until Rome expelled the Jews.

As for how it relates to Mary, I'm not sure where you would find any information on her outside of what's held in Christian tradition. At least that's reliable and written close to the time.

Suriyanakhon wrote:Sorry for the random share, but since it was relevant to the CDT, I wanted to share an academic article (The Dream of the Rood and the Image of Christ in the Early Middle Ages by Jeanette Brock) which is about the depiction of Jesus in early Anglo Saxon poetry.

[23]Though the author of the book of Hebrews states that "Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever" (1) it is clear that humankind's image of Christ has changed throughout the ages. Jaroslav Pelikan, author of Jesus Through the Centuries, writes: "It has been characteristic of each age of history to depict Jesus in accordance with its own character." (2) In "The Dream of the Rood," an Anglo-Saxon poem written in the early Middle Ages, Christ's death and burial is described in a manner which is startlingly different from the original biblical accounts. In order to emphasize the momentous triumph of the crucifixion, the poet of "The Dream of the Rood" depicts Christ as an aggressive warrior who boldly confronts and defeats sin. This depiction is consistent with the honor and courage so highly valued in the early medieval culture.

The Hanover Historical Review is dedicated to the promotion of excellence in undergraduate scholarship and writing.

The Dream of the Rood is one of the Christian poems in the corpus of Old English literature and an example of the genre of dream poetry. Like most Old English poetry, it is written in alliterative verse. Rood is from the Old English word rōd 'pole', or more specifically 'crucifix'. Preserved in the 10th-century Vercelli Book, the poem may be as old as the 8th-century Ruthwell Cross, and is considered as one of the oldest work of Old English literature.

Suriyanakhon wrote:Sorry for the random share, but since it was relevant to the CDT, I wanted to share an academic article (The Dream of the Rood and the Image of Christ in the Early Middle Ages by Jeanette Brock) which is about the depiction of Jesus in early Anglo Saxon poetry.

[23]Though the author of the book of Hebrews states that "Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever" (1) it is clear that humankind's image of Christ has changed throughout the ages. Jaroslav Pelikan, author of Jesus Through the Centuries, writes: "It has been characteristic of each age of history to depict Jesus in accordance with its own character." (2) In "The Dream of the Rood," an Anglo-Saxon poem written in the early Middle Ages, Christ's death and burial is described in a manner which is startlingly different from the original biblical accounts. In order to emphasize the momentous triumph of the crucifixion, the poet of "The Dream of the Rood" depicts Christ as an aggressive warrior who boldly confronts and defeats sin. This depiction is consistent with the honor and courage so highly valued in the early medieval culture.

The Archregimancy wrote:

The Marlborough wrote:Historically the age in which a person could get married was when they started puberty but often this was delayed for a number of years, especially for non-aristocratic marriages. For example, female Romans could legally get married at the age of 12 but often they wouldn't get married until their mid to late teens and a little bit beyond that for the lower classes. Even in post-Babylonian Exile Judaism, 14 was considered the ideal age for marriage, which was generally after many girls had already started puberty, not to mention that the process of getting married could take up to a year, ie they would have been closer to 15 when all is done and they could legally consummate. Generally speaking, aristocratic families would have been the ones closer to that ideal as opposed to non-aristocratic ones.

It gets more confusing considering that in a lot of cases, engagements would be made at 12 (or even before then) but the marriage itself was often delayed until a few years later. Also as I mentioned earlier, the process of getting married in Jewish families back then could take up to a year but from the beginning of being betrothed a couple would be considered a married couple. Given that ~15 (give or take a year) is when a lot of female aristocrats tended to get married in most societies (and whether or not this would be from the start of betrothal for Jewish ones or when it's done I wouldn't know), and Mary was not one, it's more probable that she wasn't younger than 16 when Jesus was born.

And yet some Christian Islamophobes get worked up about the fact that Aisha was likely somewhere in the range of 9-13 when she married Mohammed, and most likely in the range of 13-16 when the marriage was consummated - acknowledging that, as with Mary, this is all a matter of educated guesswork rather than hard fact.

Though of course Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, whereas Aisha was merely impregnated by Mohammed's semen; so that makes all the difference, obvs.

Apologies to both my fellow Christians and any Muslims passing through the thread for being slightly facetious about this, and I fully appreciate that no one in this thread even raised the point; but the unwillingness to consider the cultural context over child marriage in the Eastern Mediterranean in the relevant periods, and occasional Christian hypocrisy over this point, is the source of some ongoing irritation.

Luminesa wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
And yet some Christian Islamophobes get worked up about the fact that Aisha was likely somewhere in the range of 9-13 when she married Mohammed, and most likely in the range of 13-16 when the marriage was consummated - acknowledging that, as with Mary, this is all a matter of educated guesswork rather than hard fact.

Though of course Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, whereas Aisha was merely impregnated by Mohammed's semen; so that makes all the difference, obvs.

Apologies to both my fellow Christians and any Muslims passing through the thread for being slightly facetious about this, and I fully appreciate that no one in this thread even raised the point; but the unwillingness to consider the cultural context over child marriage in the Eastern Mediterranean in the relevant periods, and occasional Christian hypocrisy over this point, is the source of some ongoing irritation.

To be fair, I guess what I’ve heard of Aisha is what everyone else has ever heard, but I do know Mary was at least considered an adult when she was most likely pregnant. My own hang-up is I’m not sure if that was the case with Aisha. I’ll fully admit I know little about Islam and about its key characters, but I had heard there was coercion involved? I’m probably wrong, and this is probably more of a question for the IDT.

Salus Maior wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
Arch, not saying I agree with the hypocritical views of some Christians, but there is a vast difference between God willing a 13-15 year old to become pregnant and a 40 year old man raping an 9-12 year old girl. Mary's birth being virginal explicitly means no sex was involved whatsoever. Aisha is another story entirely; specifically, a story of statutory rape. The physical act was involved and that makes all the difference in the world.

And yes, I'm aware that historically child marriage and statutory rape were common practices throughout human history up until recently. I'm not excusing or ignoring any of that. It's a disturbing fact, but a fact nonetheless. Yet as far as the Virgin Birth of Christ is concerned, this really isn't relevant. If we were talking about the kids Joseph and Mary had after Jesus was born then it would be relevant but as it stands you're equating oranges to tangerines.

I mean, it's not really statutory rape before the concept of statutory rape was established. We can't expect everyone in history to live up to modern sexual ethics.

Punished UMN wrote:The last three pages have been bickering about something that isn't really of any importance at all. Mary was probably fourteen to sixteen when Christ was conceived, which was normal for the time and doesn't even violate canon law in the modern Catholic Church. I don't know why this is even an argument.