User talk:Hammydaman

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to John Major has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Anything (Culture Beat song) constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

NO-ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooBody but yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Carlisle has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Dougofborg (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Holy Chalice
Your additions to this page have been deleted, and since you are a new editor, I'm going to explain why. Amandajm (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wkipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Your opinions are perfectly valid opinions, but they are not encyclopedic material that cite a valid written source.
 * If you think that some valid information hhas been left out, then you must either do some solid research into the subject so that you can write about it in an expert manner, or else, leave a message on the discussion page saying that you would like to see more info on a particular aspect included.
 * I think that you will find discussion of this particular aspect on several other pages. Look at the Da Vinci Code page and at Gospel of Mary.
 * Some of the statements that you made indicate a fairly superficial understanding. For example, did you know that where it says "Jesus kissed her on ****", the manuscript is damaged, and no-one knows what he kissed her on?  It might have been her lips, but then again it could have been her forehead, or even "on her Birthday". Writers who want to put forward a particular case, tend to use the facts to please themselves.
 * Mary Magdalene is muddled (traditionally) with Mary of Bethany. By tradition they are the same person. I think that it is probable that they were, but that is just my opinion.
 * The only things that we know about Mary Magdalene for sure (from the Gospels) is that she was there at the crucifixion, and she went to the tomb in the morning, after the Sabbath, and was instructed to "Tell the disciples I am risen."
 * What we know about Mary of Bethany was that she had a sister, Martha and a brother Lazarus, and that she did two things which were considered disgraceful for an unmarried woman. 1. She sat at Jesus' feet and listened to his teaching, greatly embarrassing her sister. 2. she washed Jesus' feet, wept over them, rubbed very expensive oil on them and used her own hair to wipe them (which to the Jews was a sign of deep mourning or penance like tearing your clothes). All the disciples thought this was disgraceful behaviour and told Jesus so. If she had been his wife, on the last occasion (just before he died) or both occasions, then no-one would dared to have criticised her to her husband. Annointing his feet would have been a proper wifely thing to do. The incident is described in detail, and it is absolutely clear that they were not married. There is no reason to doubt that this incident has been accurately recorded.
 * Let us presume that Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were two different people. If Jesus had been married to Mary M, would Mary B. have behaved like that? If Jesus had a wife, would he have let another woman act like that towards him? Would his wife have allowed it? What would the disciples have said? This indicates strongly either that 1) he was not married, or 2) even though he was married his didn't give stuff-all for his wife's feelings. The second is not likely to be true.
 * People who put forward the case for Jesus having been married choose to ignore that fact that there had always been a line of unmarried prophetic men. John the Baptist is one. St Paul is also unmarried, and as you probably know, recommended that people who seek to serve God should remain celibate. (This is why Catholic priests are celibate.) Jesus fits into this pattern. The insistence that Jesus was married has to do with a modern obsession with sex and a modern notion that no-one can do without it.
 * Don't get taken in by Dan Brown. He is a professional writer. He writes novels in the hope that they will sell well.

not to be argumentative but is also believed that it was not damaged and that it DID read, he kissed heron the cheek, and that the undamaged parts of the gospel of mary magdalane give a clear insight into an intimate relationship, as a christian i hardly see this as a superficial understanding but a deeper thought at the fact not that jesus was human and not divine (this is against my beliefs) but that his devinity lives on and creates a bloodline for a second coming, however the information is not deeply researched and i was expressing opinion and a simple hypothetical idea, this would deeply trouble if i was wrong so i choose not to put it as fact, this would create a conflict between belief and faith. Although mary was mixed up with other maries of her time this Mary regardless of who she was shared a intimate elationship with my messiah and it should be informed to the entirity of the christian world, believers will believe, regardless of what i think.