came4U
Posts: 3572
Joined: 1/23/2007 From: London, Ontario Status: offline
|
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)?
< Message edited by came4U -- 12/15/2008 2:59:07 PM >
|