@curiousdannii OK - so I just noticed the wink, gonna bite my tongue and move on. In any event, she has hundreds of titles, that is the only one in the Apostles Creed. I would prefer blessed-virgin-mary or queen-of-heaven or vessel-of-singular-devotion
@curiousdannii oh, I thought we were all in on compelled speech now :) In any event, not doing it is not neutral, not referring to the Queen of Heaven and Earth by some honorific is a blasphemy to me. I think virgin-maryis the compromise.
If El'endia and Mason want to change it, I won't stop 'em though.
@PeterTurner Is that a problem? If we have questions about the Nestorian Church of the East's view of Mary, isn't it okay that they can tag it as mary-mother-of-jesus without feeling like they're denying their theology.
Your argument implies that we should renamed the Jesus tag to Jesus-the-eternal-Son-of-God, but I can hope you'd see that our JW members would be offended by tags like that
Or should each denomination have their own tags, so that Catholics can tag Apostle-Peter-The-First-Pope and Protestants just have Apostle-Peter? You can have Virgin-Mary and I'll have Mary-the-Mother-of-Jesus-and-James?
Anyways, I hope you'll reconsider. I have to get to bed. Cheers!
Wow. They are still making a train wreck out of this. A contrarian but also not at all inflammatory post on the update faq discussion thread has been deleted as spam/rude/abusive.
I could understand it being deleted from their new FAQ chain that they don't want to use for discussion, but this is on the discussion post, and it's not just deleted it deleted by validating (his or somebody elses) spam/abusive flag.
Hmm. I know that when I red-flag posts the deletion gets attributed to the Community user. Maybe Cesar merely meant to delete and that validated the flag? (For what it's worth, I agree that a spam/abusive flag was unjustified there.)
i would really like to discuss the current drama with some people here at some point. Decompress about it. But alas I think I am in the wrong time zone...
