RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary

RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

RCdc -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 10:23:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub How about catholics like me...dontcha think WE are offended if the Virgin Mary is used in a porn magazine? Is there no respect for the religious beliefs of others anymore? You won't see a nude Mohammad because the editor would find his head being lopped off..but it's soooo freakin easy to ridicule christians...up to now there has been no downside risk. Sure there are problems with the Catholic faith. Wherever humans are involved you are going to find weakness, perverts, and out right criminality. I don't think, however the Catholic church has a monoply on that..they are just bigger than most religions around the world and been around longer than most other than Jewish and witchcraft believers. I'm here on a BDSM venue so obviously not a good catholic boy...full of sin I guess. However, I don't like people casting stones at my religion as an excuse for outrageous attacks on our icons. Whilst I agree that casting stones on a religion is pretty poor, I would say that it is pretty clear biblically that god doesn't approve of idols and worshipping others - regardless of whether they are his mother. I have never understood that and I have never had a person explain that position to me, even when asked. Cory, I do see how you could be offended if it was mary. But it isn't. Maybe you should read the report? I am also confused why catholics would be so upset when she isn't really a christian figure, but a hybrid goddess mix. But hey, that is where things get fucked up in the media hey. People should (in an ideal world) actually know what they are complaining about before they feel attacked. So in a sense, any catholic attacking this are asking to be attacked back in truth. Because she sure isn't mary. Sexualisation of an object or position is pretty much mainstream. If people get upset about it being Mary, then they should feel the same upset over nurses, secretaries or school mistress'. the.dark.

RCdc -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 10:34:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly My understanding of the Christian faith is one does not worship false Gods (with the exception of the Catholics...who worship whomever the vatican tells them to). Is Mary a God? If not then i cannot see it as sacrilage. One of the ten (or thirteen depending how you view it) commandments is not to worship any gods above god, or worship idols etc... including making 'you' (man or woman) an idol. Technically, converting mary into an idol would be sacrilage in itself. the.dark.

sirsholly -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 10:37:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly My understanding of the Christian faith is one does not worship false Gods (with the exception of the Catholics...who worship whomever the vatican tells them to). Is Mary a God? If not then i cannot see it as sacrilage. One of the ten (or thirteen depending how you view it) commandments is not to worship any gods above god, or worship idols etc... including making 'you' (man or woman) an idol. Technically, converting mary into an idol would be sacrilage in itself. the.dark. As is the Vatican canonizing into sainthood...

RCdc -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 10:44:08 AM)
.yup.yup.yup the.dark.

calamitysandra -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 12:34:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U The only things strictly feminine about Mary is her ability to give birth, her soft kindness, charity and ability to raise a son to his full potential. WTF??? [>:] Ability to give birth is a strictly female quality, yes, but the other points? Poor world if only woman can be kind and charitable, and poor sons of single fathers if it takes a mother, and as you seem to think, only a mother, to raise a son to reach his full potential!

came4U -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 1:09:58 PM)
quote: Poor world if only woman can be kind and charitable, and poor sons of single fathers if it takes a mother, and as you seem to think, only a mother, to raise a son to reach his full potential! In this case, Joseph isn't mentioned much in the bible at all, it seems mostly Mary did the raising and tendering. Besides, anyone knows that nothing beats a woman's touch in raising a son or a daughter. With either parent missing it causes some (some more, some less) conflict and lacking. Some single dads may raise some fine young men, but often with the help or necessity of having a motherly figure in their life (same goes for girls). It only aids in the construction of a whole, secure person. I implied the softness of a womanly creature, compared to the men in that day. She embodied wisdom, softness, compassion and empathy. Men can be and do the same, but anyone who is a decent mother can dispute that they (men) are any better at it. The mother-son bond is what I refer to.

sirsholly -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 1:34:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U she is piety, devoid of any human necessity of sexual contact or expression of such (physically or in manner). Yes, a true virgin. Says who? If you can quote chapter and verse that says Mary was without sexual desires, have at it. I do believe there is mention in the bible of one of Jesus' brothers, assumed to be the son of Mary and Joseph. And btw...did you know it seems Mary and Joseph never had the legal union of marriage, or so i have heard.

CarrieO -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 1:41:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Without boundaries upon shameful displays of our (or another's) religious figures as sacred, when will it end? It won't. What is sacred for one may not be for another. I would prefer articles/photos of poor taste to a group like the mutaween ( the Saudi Committee to Promote Virtue and Prevent Vice) being put into place. Where would that end? What defines offensive for each person? Who makes that determination? While I agree it may have been in poor taste to print such a photo, at what point do we erect boundaries and who creates and enforces them? As I said before, if the foundation of a faith is so easily shaken and offended by a photo then I would question the stability of that foundation.

calamitysandra -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 2:03:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U In this case, Joseph isn't mentioned much in the bible at all, it seems mostly Mary did the raising and tendering. Besides, anyone knows that nothing beats a woman's touch in raising a son or a daughter. With either parent missing it causes some (some more, some less) conflict and lacking. Some single dads may raise some fine young men, but often with the help or necessity of having a motherly figure in their life (same goes for girls). It only aids in the construction of a whole, secure person. I am not touching that pile of bullsh*t with a ten foot pole. Especially not as a mother of sons.[>:]

came4U -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 2:08:37 PM)
quote: Says who? If you can quote chapter and verse that says Mary was without sexual desires, have at it. I do believe there is mention in the bible of one of Jesus' brothers, assumed to be the son of Mary and Joseph. And btw...did you know it seems Mary and Joseph never had the legal union of marriage, or so i have heard. Some believe 'brothers' to refer to those that served with him, others believe that Joseph had a wife previous and had 8 children. Marriage or no marriage, (little is mentioned of it in the King James) she is refered to as 'wife' and even if some believe her not to be, it was still an immaculate conception, so little matter if they were married in the biblical sense to conceptualise a child. quote: What is sacred for one may not be for another. I would prefer articles/photos of poor taste to a group like the mutaween ( the Saudi Committee to Promote Virtue and Prevent Vice) being put into place. Where would that end? No, I imply only those that purchase are in poor taste. Not up to me to ban it, did I mention banning anything? quote: What defines offensive for each person? Who makes that determination? While I agree it may have been in poor taste to print such a photo, at what point do we erect boundaries and who creates and enforces them? There is no cultural universal that pedophelia is offensive either..who makes that rule (here)? We do (citizens and lawmakers). On the same topic, it is of poor taste to purchase such sensationalist issues of Playboy if one is a Christian? (ie: unless one is athiest, anti-Christian or Jewish and finds humour in it all). Yes. Besides, this has little to do with the beliefs of others, I cannot sit here night and day explaining nor transcripting for people who cannot read it themselves. You either think it is a blasphamy or you don't, that was the question. The premise is, if religious icons deserve to be exploited, if so, what is next? Don't question me on whether I think it is, I think you know the answer lol. Nor, will anything (grabbed from some nonsense context) anyone here says change my mind about it. This reminds me of the famous little blue eyed (muslim) Yemenese girl that was on the cover of TIME, if that were made a facsimile would the reaction be any different? I doubt it, because to most (like the thoughts on Mary) she is muslim therefore sub-human. I liked this point: quote: Sexualisation of an object or position is pretty much mainstream. If people get upset about it being Mary, then they should feel the same upset over nurses, secretaries or school mistress' exactly, when the sexualisation/sensualization of once certain boundaries of classes of the masses with a little woopla of shock for a few years/decades and then such becomes mainstream, when will it stop? Are you being desinsitized? Have you been already (by previous generations)? What will it lead to and for what purpose? Will it eventually be a freeforall? Is that a good thing (open society)?

kittinSol -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 2:10:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U I implied the softness of a womanly creature, compared to the men in that day. She embodied wisdom, softness, compassion and empathy. Considering that Mary was a Jewish mama... the above description had me howling with laughter [8D] .

philosophy -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 2:13:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: came4U Besides, anyone knows that nothing beats a woman's touch in raising a son or a daughter. With either parent missing it causes some (some more, some less) conflict and lacking. Some single dads may raise some fine young men, but often with the help or necessity of having a motherly figure in their life (same goes for girls). It only aids in the construction of a whole, secure person. ...good grief. Doesn't matter if there are two parents or one, whether they are male or female, straight or gay. What matters, the only thing that matters, is that they love the child. Gender is sod all to do with it.

corysub -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 2:24:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: corysub How about catholics like me...dontcha think WE are offended if the Virgin Mary is used in a porn magazine? Is there no respect for the religious beliefs of others anymore? You won't see a nude Mohammad because the editor would find his head being lopped off..but it's soooo freakin easy to ridicule christians...up to now there has been no downside risk. Sure there are problems with the Catholic faith. Wherever humans are involved you are going to find weakness, perverts, and out right criminality. I don't think, however the Catholic church has a monoply on that..they are just bigger than most religions around the world and been around longer than most other than Jewish and witchcraft believers. I'm here on a BDSM venue so obviously not a good catholic boy...full of sin I guess. However, I don't like people casting stones at my religion as an excuse for outrageous attacks on our icons. Whilst I agree that casting stones on a religion is pretty poor, I would say that it is pretty clear biblically that god doesn't approve of idols and worshipping others - regardless of whether they are his mother. I have never understood that and I have never had a person explain that position to me, even when asked. Cory, I do see how you could be offended if it was mary. But it isn't. Maybe you should read the report? I am also confused why catholics would be so upset when she isn't really a christian figure, but a hybrid goddess mix. But hey, that is where things get fucked up in the media hey. People should (in an ideal world) actually know what they are complaining about before they feel attacked. So in a sense, any catholic attacking this are asking to be attacked back in truth. Because she sure isn't mary. Sexualisation of an object or position is pretty much mainstream. If people get upset about it being Mary, then they should feel the same upset over nurses, secretaries or school mistress'. the.dark. Tell me your are joking..."it's not Mary"...than who is it? It's unmistakingly a charictature of the Virgin Mary...and more specifically, Mary of Guadalupe, the virgin that Mexicans adore, not as a Goddess but as the Mothe of Jesus. I don't have to explain or justify my religious beliefs to anyone, and my beliefs should be totally irrelevant you your pursuit of happiness. However, don't attack my religion, treat a woman we believe is the Mother of God like a "secretary"...or like a "Hybrid Goddess"...Maybe it would be interesting to see a picture of Moses or Abraham with his cock dangling and a rosebud up his ass...and see how lovely that would appear to those of the Jewish faith, or Mohammed on his knees doing it doggie style. We have had the crucifix in piss, and all sorts of horrible images of Christian icons, and everyone just laughs. Well fuck em... Like Peter, I would draw my sword and cut off not the ear but something a little lower down. CM is no place to argue religion. This is not what I am here for..but this thread has pushed a button and has been allowed to continue.

LaTigresse -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 2:26:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: calamitysandra quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: came4U I implied the softness of a womanly creature, compared to the men in that day. She embodied wisdom, softness, compassion and empathy. Considering that Mary was a Jewish mama... the above description had me howling with laughter [8D] . ...that Jesus, he doesn't write, he doesn't call........ And no grandkids either. Oh you three..........people!!! Now you've got me sitting here at my desk laughing......out loud.....with tears streaming down my cheeks. As for the grandkids......some of those smart scholarly types are suggesting otherwise now.

calamitysandra -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 2:31:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse As for the grandkids......some of those smart scholarly types are suggesting otherwise now. I know, and honestly, I like that version much better. But I was fearing new accusations of blasphemy. You know, nobody ever expects the Inquisition, and I fear I would burn well.

MisterMonster -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 2:32:44 PM)
Anyone have pictures of this chick? I don't wanna pay money for a softcore mag. Penthouse already tricked me by transforming out of nowhere, and I'm not going to go to the original, "Hey, this is actually no big deal." Hey, I'm pretty sure Virgin Mary would have slept with Joseph after Jesus. How is she Virgin?

sirsholly -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 2:36:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: calamitysandra quote: ORIGINAL: came4U In this case, Joseph isn't mentioned much in the bible at all, it seems mostly Mary did the raising and tendering. Besides, anyone knows that nothing beats a woman's touch in raising a son or a daughter. With either parent missing it causes some (some more, some less) conflict and lacking. Some single dads may raise some fine young men, but often with the help or necessity of having a motherly figure in their life (same goes for girls). It only aids in the construction of a whole, secure person. I am not touching that pile of bullsh*t with a ten foot pole. Especially not as a mother of sons.[>:] i am right there with you...

E2Sweet -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 3:49:35 PM)
Hmm, it seems insanely rediculous to me that even though countless numbers of innocent people have been tortured and murdered in the name of Catholicism over the course of its history, folks are still actually surprised their religious icons are not held in the highest light amongst those who do not practice the faith. To me, its kinda like being surprised when a certain leader of a powerful country sets out to bomb a smaller country into oblivion (under false pretenses), then shows up to do yet another post-bombing press conference, speaking as if he did no wrong, and gets someone's shoes hurled at him...[8\|] The truth of the matter is, the woman in the photo is very beautiful, and to me, the cover is quite tasteful. If you somehow feel the cover is insulting, I suggest you refrain from purchasing a copy, that way you send a clear signal to the publisher you don't support the work. If you feel you need to do more, then perhaps write the publisher an angry letter and let your voice be heard...err...read. But to come here and even hint that Catholicism is somehow under attack or has been unjustly violated because of a magazine photo? Perhaps tell that to the decendants of those who have died at the hands of the church... From me you do get understanding, but not a whole lot of sympathy...

rachel529 -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 4:03:58 PM)
maybe they can burn the libraries, thatll get rid of the magazine... wait, didnt that already happen?

Cagey18 -> RE: Playboy's nude Virgin Mary (12/15/2008 4:06:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CarrieO While I agree it may have been in poor taste to print such a photo, at what point do we erect boundaries and who creates and enforces them? As I said before, if the foundation of a faith is so easily shaken and offended by a photo then I would question the stability of that foundation. And it bears repeating that the photo is not of "the Virgin Mary" but rather of a model whose actual name is Mary (Maria, in Spanish). Any other inferences are in the eye of the beholder.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875