Milk-carton alert: Millions of rampaging Christians missing after Playboy “Maria” outrage
posted at 4:00 pm on December 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Catholics and Christians in Mexico have expressed outrage over Playboy’s latest cover. The shot feature a model wearing a white head covering and nothing more in front of a stained-glass window, an obvious attempt to evoke the Madonna (the original, not the singer) at the time Mexican Catholics celebrate the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Fox News was all over this story, to no one’s surprise:
I suppose I should be outraged as well, but honestly, Playboy and the rest of the porn industry stopped surprising me years ago. Their hostility towards religion has been obvious for a long time, and the new Madonna imagery is just the latest attempted insult towards people of faith. It wouldn’t even be worth of comment, except for two points that I have yet to note being made in what little debate this cover has inspired.
First, conservatives will have a tough time criticizing Playboy for using religious iconography for its own social/political commentary after the defense made of the Mohammad cartoons. While the point in the latter had more intellectual heft than a naked model showcasing her wares, the cartoonists and their supporters (myself included) had little problem with exploiting religious imagery to score political points. Freedom of speech applies in both cases, at least in the cover, which is very suggestive but shows nothing more than anyone would see on a California beach, although the tagline, “Te adoramos, Maria” is at least somewhat sacriligeous in this context as well.
That leads to the second point. Our Western traditions of free speech and open debate have allowed offended Christians to protest the publication without massive violence and threats of death. The offense in this case goes far beyond what most of the Mohammad cartoons depicted, and yet millions of Christians have not gathered in anger to threaten death and the violent imposition of a Christian theocracy. The Vatican has not issued a fatwa on Hugh Hefner’s head, and I’d be surprised if they bother to react at all.
Update: Bottom line is that it doesn’t take much courage for Playboy to insult Christians. We’ll know they have testicular fortitude when they take Melissa Clouthier’s advice.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Just for the record:
Immaculate Conception refers to Mary being born without “orginal sin” ….it is NOT referring to Christ’s conception.
You can look that up in any dictionary, you don’t even have to go to the Bible.
mag5435 on December 16, 2008 at 8:26 AM
It seems like some of you who proclaim to be Catholics really aren’t – Mary IS the Patron Saint of the United States, as a matter of fact, the US is dedicated to Mary Immaculate Conception! This whole thing is a further insult to Catholics in the US as well. Christians on the whole, but since Protestants don’t revere Mary like we do, it is an insult especially towards us! Playboy is at best a rag, so I don’t pay much attention to what they do – constantly denigrating women! There is beauty in the human form, but by trashing it out on the front pages of smut magazines it makes women look like whores. Yes, these women that are depicted are well paid for their “service”, but I feel assaulted by the whole industry as well.
Isn’t it funny that free speech only applies to those who like to do damage to one or more segments of society – as it was pointed out in several posts here, we Christians would not dare to bring any person revered by any other religion into such a situation, because of the – rightly so – outcry that would surely follow! However, we can have the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung, depicted nude, the crucifix sitting in a jar of urine, books and movies written about how Jesus had an illicit relationship with one or more women, etc. etc. and everyone says “it is free speech, it is art, it is whatever”.
I am sick and tired of what I believe to be the majority of citizens just sitting back and taking and taking and taking it! We need to stand up and tell them NO!!! sometimes! Our freedoms are being taken away one at a time and it does not even seem like we are aware of this… No, we don’t need to get our pitchforks and climb up to the castle, but we better speak out. When someone uses profanity, I just tell them I won’t tolerate that. If they continue, I am done – I leave. If more people did that, this cussing would stop for the simple fact that nobody would listen to it any more. That is how we all have to take something back here. If you have the right to say anything you want, I have the right not to be offended by it.
mkosin on December 16, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Not at all, because…
After the last 20 years of “Pi** Christ” and the like, this is mild. That doesn’t mean I don’t strongly object, or that I have no righteous indignation about the latest slap at my Savior (they can slap at Christians all they want, Jesus told us we should consider that a blessing), but I honestly have no more desire to burn down the Playboy mansion than I did last month or the month before — which is to say, considerable desire but considerably more self control.
RegularJoe on December 16, 2008 at 8:56 AM
I’ve been reading HA since its inception but only started commenting (semi-)regularly a couple of months ago.
And maybe I missed it before, but there certainly seems to be more virulent anti-Christian trolls here than there used to be.
Maybe Prop8 stirred them up, or maybe these people really have a hard time during the Christmas season. I don’t know.
But I’ve read some things here on HA that went well past just being trollish and went to downright hateful.
I should note, of course, that I’ve read some pretty hateful posts by people claiming to be Christians (although their posts would seem to speak against them being devout believers).
On another note, I find it particularly ‘interesting’ how suddenly this thread slowed down (a little after 6:00 PM yesterday).
Now, it’s probably due to the real world calling…
…but I can’t help but wonder if some of our trolls have been put in time-out.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Based on my experience (general, not specific; I don’t know Lev), it’s most likely one of two things when someone is this vitriolic in their hatred of Christians: either a lack of confidence in his own (dis)belief; or someone who at least called themselves a Christian whizzed in his corn-flakes (and it may well have been a Christian; just because we aspire to be Christ-like certainly doesn’t mean we achieve it!)
Lev, I can tell you that for everyone who fires back at you there are probably a dozen who just feel sad for you. I hope you someday are willing to drop your burden of anger and find Christ. In the meantime, I (for one) will continue to forgive your outbursts.
RegularJoe on December 16, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 9:04 AM
I noticed the same thing. I am for free speech as much as the next American, but not the abuse of it. I have sung in church choirs for 30 years and am one of the leads in my church Christmas play. I don’t understand the virulent hatred toward God and Christians that some of these “Trolls” have expressed. Perhaps their arrogance and looking down their noses toward Christians is just a way of expressing their own miserable state. But you sure can’t have a reasonable discussion with some of them. And I thought that is what Hot Air was about.
kingsjester on December 16, 2008 at 9:17 AM
The attackers of the faithful are similar to most bully’s. The bully attacks and attacks, and when they are finally stood up to, they whine about how mean the faithful are.
When the faithful stand up for their rights, suddenly it is “turn the other cheek”, “don’t judge”. The bully begins to cry that they are the ones that are being attacked.
Most of us faithful can’t even lecture at universities…the universities that we built.
But as someone mentioned, the bully never attacks someone stronger…I notice the “gay protestors”, as noted, never marched on a Mosque. What do you think Islam thinks of your “gayness”?
The atheists, except in complete anonymity, never attack Muslims.
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 9:28 AM
No, you can’t have a reasonable discussion with some of these trolls.
About a week ago I was trying to do just that, showing a couple of people that the claims they were making against Christianity simply weren’t factually correct (church doctrine WAS set and stable long before the Council of Nicaea; and that the differences in copies of the scripture were minor and didn’t affect basic theology of doctrine).
After quoting respected scholars in the field and pointing them toward books they could read, both of them basically told me that they weren’t interested in reading the scholarship!
Which is funny/ironic since these people are the same people claiming that Christians turn their brains off and rely on faith instead of reason.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Why is Aliyson, or whatever it is how she spells her name, “the tart” Camewhatever covering a story on the Virgin Mary – when it was Aliyson’s “short dress & the be@v*r shots – if you now what I mean,” that drove my husband and me from most of Fox News – her and the various other “femmes lâches” on FNC?
Hmmm, I guess a tart to cover Hugh “peddler della sconcezza“ Heffner seems almost logical – but the tart is too stupid to live, based on her past vacuous analysis of current events, that I am not surprised she was the obvious choice for this “piece” on the
magazine covermisogynist rag.Fr. Jonathan Morris should could hazard pay to even have to discuss this morally bankrupt rag and it’s stunt to get all of the lecherous pervs off the internet and back into print.
Sad day for Mexico. It was the “Feast of Our Lady of Guadulaupe” which is an important day for most practicing Catholics in Mexico.
Of course no riots over the magazine nor over the discussion of it. Quite different than in most parts run by turks….
Branch Rickey on December 16, 2008 at 9:35 AM
mkosin on December 16, 2008 at 8:51 AM
As a SC justice once said, free speech protections are not needed for speech that is popular, only speech that is unpopular.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 9:38 AM
I used to think that was true until I actually saw a Playboy, and I must admit that it was not at all what I expected. The women weren’t put in degrading positions or made to look like whores. If anything, they seemed elevated and artful. Of course they were naked, but elegantly so.
I’m not a man, so obviously my perspective is different, but the women didn’t look anymore sexual than nude paintings to me.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 9:54 AM
You nailed it William.
DK – you can come to Catholic Church with me anytime. However your religious-bashing might have to stay in the vestibule as you will see people from night shelters to those from upper class homes holding hands and seeing each other: not color, soci-economic background, not a comparison of each’s piety – yet as Children of Jesus and even hug one another at the sign of peace. It’s all about Jesus.
Like I said DK – you are welcome to attend with me….
Branch Rickey on December 16, 2008 at 9:58 AM
The Danish Cartoonist did not depict Mohammed in a naked, sexually evocative pose. The Cartoons depicted Mohammed manhandling hate, murder and tyranny to own mankind.
A true comparison with the Mohammed cartoons would depict Mother Mary as the human vessel with the potent Word/Peace to save humanity from innate hate being created in her womb.
That the Mexican Playboy lacks the decorum is no news.
maverick muse on December 16, 2008 at 9:58 AM
How’s Senator McCain; speaking of “no news”, btw mave muse?
Branch Rickey on December 16, 2008 at 10:03 AM
May I just exercise my First Amendment right to say about this comment:
Wotta maroon!
Including, and especially, talking about immaculate conception, which refers to the birth of Mary, when discussing Mary herself being with child.
tom on December 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I agree. My husband and I have some pics from Playboy of one of our favorite actresses (Tricia Helfer), and the pics are incredibly tasteful for nude pictures. Black and white, capturing her beauty brilliantly.
If that’s denigrating women, than every artist that captured a nude on canvas denigrated women too. Can’t say the same for some other magazines, though.
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Neither can I. I hear that Hustler isn’t so great, but I don’t know anyone who owns one and don’t see the need to check it out for myself.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 10:23 AM
From everything I’ve heard and read, while neither one offers much in regards to being a role model, Hefner is a saint compared to Larry Flint. As thoroughly disagreeable human being as has ever existed.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 10:32 AM
A high-class whore is still a whore.
TMK on December 16, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Not exactly fixed. You’re still deriding others as stupid while revealing your own ignorance.
And no, I’m not Catholic, and don’t believe in the “Immaculate Conception.” Many Protestants could make the same mistake, honestly. But if you’re going to treat others as stupid, you should be a little more careful.
Of course, your “maroon-ness” has more to do with the way you insert your own issues with belief in God into everything.
tom on December 16, 2008 at 10:56 AM
This isn’t a “cross in the urine”, but the intent is basically the same.
Denigrate a religious icon, and promote the artist…the end justifies the means.
This is the liberal mantra, and this is what Hispanic voters accept.
Their beliefs will be denigrated, ridiculed, while they are asked for their votes, and like the African-Americans, they will just fall into the line to receive their “handout”.
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Branch Rickey on December 16, 2008 at 10:03 AM
You implying that McCain released a statement regarding this thread?
As per the man who never deserved to be GOP POTUS Candidate ‘08, he needs to retire or be REPLACED as Arizona deserves representation by a conservative like J.D. Hayworth, the next Senator to be elected from Arizona if the state still has brains similar to Goldwater’s. If you have a problem with making out as well as possible with the awful hand dealt, get in line. That complaint does not deserve attention at the expense of the icon of Virtue unless you’re “giving it up to God.”
maverick muse on December 16, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 9:54 AM
I somewhat agree.
I just think the cover is a beautiful picture. But, as a woman, it doesn’t strike me as sexual…but, it is a boy’s magazine.
bridgetown on December 16, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Why does this issue get three pages of comments? Are we all just treading water until Obama takes office? Slow news month?
With that said, I agree with those suggesting this is a free speech event not unlike the Mohammed cartoons. No riots. No Christians burning Hugh Hefner in effigy.
Which brings me to one of my favorite religious jokes:
“The problem with the church is too many denominations-
Catholics don’t recognize protestants, Protestants don’t recognize Mormons, Baptists don’t recognize each other (at Hooters)”.
(BTW-I’m Baptist, with a sense of humor)
Doug on December 16, 2008 at 11:17 AM
A whore is someone who you can pay to have sex with, not to take a picture of.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 11:25 AM
I think he was referring to selling your body…a “whore” imply’s, but doesn’t always mean sex.
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I’d be for interested in what Father Guido Sarduci has to say.
Bad Bear Dog on December 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM
There are a lot of high-class whores in the world of politics and media. Sex isn’t the only part of themselves that people sell in exchange for the promised comfort of power or money.
dedalus on December 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM
I figured, but that’s what the word means. And frankly, the word gets tossed around here too often for my taste.
If we’re going to consider Playboy posers whores, then we should do the same with this woman:
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/photos-oldwest/SaloonPainting-500.jpg
In fact, Michelangelo should be considered a pimp.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 11:52 AM
My, my – me thinks the muse doth protest too much.
Just asking a question. You seemed so chummy before the election; that’s all.
You are correct. There was no statement on this thread. I should have noted that the question was an o/t – I just happened to see you comment.
I didn’t really get the rest of your other bellowing in your comments; so just Air Kisses for now, MavMuse
Have a great rest of the day….
Branch Rickey on December 16, 2008 at 11:52 AM
The 21st Century has flipped a 19th-Century concept regarding Love/God. BEFORE the damned neo-Romantic post-1848 era of empiricism from which today’s contemporary thought is staged, and through which Marxism progressively overwhelmed societies with Socialism), once upon a time in metaphysical Romanticism, eros/pathos merged in expressing Love. One “Loved” one’s lover as one “Loved” God with the same DEVOTION. One expressed one’s love for God via one’s sexuality with one’s lover. But via destruction of imaginative/creative thought, contemporary minds can not tolerate anything they do not own, such as respect for the metaphysical Life, Spirit, Thought or IDEAL. The 21st century loves the denigration and eschews the elevation of virtue. The ONLY devotion that “high society culture” tolerates today is towards one’s self. “What do I get out of it?”! Nothing new.
BTW, if there is a God (and I believe that GOD IS, “I AM THAT I AM”), there is no boundary that man can effectively impose upon God. How God exists is God’s business, as is how God creates. What I have to say about God has absolutely no affect on God, only on myself in my relationship regarding my life.
I have a particular problem with people who impose their own limitations upon me though I leave them as they are. Though I may share my views, I do not impose my own beliefs upon them to be either embraced or enforced. Since something doesn’t work for them, they would deny me what works for me. If mutual respect existed, frustration and intimidation would recede.
To prefer contempt over patience is nothing new. That the majority prefer contempt over tolerance is ironically the new age gift. Sadly, US military involvements post-WWII have contributed toward global termination of Christianity. Via un-controverted empiricism, “Science” has become the twisted Grand Inquisitor that burns all opposition after condemning metaphysical evidence to hell. Imagination is not “bad” as discoveries and inventions would hardly occur without the impetus of NEW PRODUCTIVE THOUGHT and dreams. In order to become more pure, science purges spontaneous thought. Progressivism is full of sardonic irony.
For the record, “Merry Christmas” represents the “modern” embrace of the Ideal: Peace on Earth; Goodwill to Humanity!
maverick muse on December 16, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Branch Rickey must be a late-comer to not know who supported Fred Thompson and during the primaries battled against McCain.
maverick muse on December 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM
THIS IS AN ATROCITY!
For Hefner to depict the Virgin Mother of our Lord as a sexual object is an OUTRAGE!
Surely Hugh Hefner will drop dead soon and hopefully his stupid porno magazine will go down with him!
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Hold the phone Ed. You’re drawing lines of equivalence that give the argument away before it begins, and in a completely unjustified fashion.
The major objection to the reaction over the Mo’ cartoons was the ridiculously overwrought, violent reaction to them. People died over this, embassies were burned – it was an international incident. If all Muslims had done was write angry letters and pull financial support, no one could have batted an eye – of course, it would have been a notable instance of restraint on their part.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 16, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I thought virgins wore blue veils?
cyclosarin on December 16, 2008 at 12:24 PM
maverick muse on December 16, 2008 at 11:55 AM
-
Well said!
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 12:10 PM
- You are an outrage if you think yourself a christian.
bridgetown on December 16, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Well for someone who apparently doesn’t know the difference between Black Sabbath and Mozart. or Michelangelo and Playboy, it would be confusing.
Funny you chose a picture over a saloon bar…
Most of us have discernment…I will make sure you never select a babysitter for me, or that you work in any of my HR departments.
You would consider the depiction of a child being raped and a child being bathed as the same, according to your analogy…they both have nude children…
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Random Google search.
I think I can make sure of that myself as neither hold any interest for me as careers, and I’m more than qualified to find my own job.
Your conclusion assumes that I picked both only because they both depict nude women, even though that isn’t even remotely my point, which I thought I’d made clear in my last few posts this morning.
Playboy is tasteful. Two other women have agreed with me on this just this morning. If you’ve seen one, then you likely no what I mean.
Nude art, like Michelangelo’s David is also tasteful.
As far as I’m concerned, the only difference between them is the medium used (photos versus stone or canvas). In fact, I’d bet my entire savings that if an artist were to faithfully transfer Playboy pictures onto canvas that most people wouldn’t even know the difference.
That was my point. Feel free to slander me as someone unfit to hire a babysitter if that’s your choice, but don’t do it with the mistaken impression that I see no difference in a tasteful picture and a picture of rape as that was my entire argument.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Says who?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM
You’ve got it backwards. The promise of a Messiah was made to Adam and Eve way back in Genesis 3. Bacchus was a myth that came about later. There’s been some speculation that he was modeled after the historical Nimrod mentioned in Genesis. Of course, if you’re interested in information about Nimrod, you’ll have to sift through a lot of mythology and tradition, mixed with a certain amount of speculation, since Genesis barely mentions him at all.
What you sometimes forget in your diatribes against Christianity is that Christianity didn’t just pop up one day. It was based on Judaism, even using the same Jewish scriptures.
And Judaism was not the first form of monotheism either. It was based on the religion of Abraham, which itself was a form of monotheism that predated Abraham. You ignorantly presume that Bacchus came first because that particular myth was around before Christianity, but there’s a lot of historical evidence that monotheism came before the pagan religions.
The promise of a Messiah has been around for a long, long time.
tom on December 16, 2008 at 1:10 PM
I thought most Protestants taught about an age of accountability instead.
I’ve heard many saying that we’re born into sin, i.e. that we are born with a sinful nature that is selfish and prideful and all sorts of things that kids have to be taught to control, but I don’t interpret that the same as being born with sin.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Sorry, I don’t buy into that “tasteful” stuff…if you think Playboy has tastefully exposed (pun intended) women, that is your opinion, thus the analogy about you working in HR or choosing a babysitter.
It isn’t the medium of canvass or stone,or print…it is the venue.
You can place a beautiful women in a rose garden and that is one picture, or you can place her in a brothel.
The women may be pretty, beautifully photographed, but it is mired in a liberal cesspool of ideas and goals.
There is a difference between the Folies Bergère in Vegas, and a nude dancer in Tijuana…it is not only the production, it is the venue…Playboy and Hustler is not the venue of choice to see women.
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 1:20 PM
I’ve heard some ridiculous attempts to claim that Christianity ‘plagiarized’ something, but this one is ridiculous.
Whatever tenuous similarities exist between Dionysus and Christ are vastly overshadowed by the deep and fundamental differences.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I think what you’re getting at is that the PURPOSE of the paintings/pictures matter.
The PURPOSE of Playboy is not for an academic and soulful appreciation of the female body.
The PURPOSE of Playboy is to sexually titillate and excite.
Which brings to mind Matthew 5:27-28:
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Purpose gets into reading their minds, are seeing what is in their heart…not my line of work.
But I see what you mean, just that God usually takes care of what is in a persons heart, I have to judge the actions…so I use venue, rather then purpose…but I get it.
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Goes to show you the difference again between Christians and Catholics. Catholics worship Mary. Oh wait, they call it “venerating” Mary/Isis.
They’re probably more outraged at the depiction of their female co-redemptrix than they’d be if it was something about Jesus.
TTheoLogan on December 16, 2008 at 1:43 PM
I understand what you’re saying…
…but it doesn’t take a mind reader to understand the purpose of Playboy.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Why do you think the Virgin Birth is considered an important doctrine? The point being not that Jesus was born without Mary having sex, but that Jesus was born without a human father, therefore did not inherit a sin nature.
That is at least logically consistent, as opposed to your presumption that the question was just ignored.
Immaculate conception was not invented to explain why Jesus was born without sin. The Virgin Birth doctrine explained that. Immaculate conception’s purpose was to further venerate Mary as above sin. That’s why Catholics believe the doctrine, while Protestants — who honor Mary, but don’t grant her a special role in their faith — don’t believe the doctrine.
Well, that and the fact that there’s no hint of such an idea in any scripture.
tom on December 16, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Those denominations don’t teach “original sin,” or “total hereditary depravity,” meaning all humans are born guilty of every father’s sin back to Adam from day one.
The ones that do don’t wrestle with the paradox of Jesus being flesh unlike the Catholics, who did wrestle with it when someone pointed that paradox out; the TULIPs just gloss it. Either way, both ignore the fact that sinning means practicing lawlessness, and babies don’t break God’s laws in any way. Or to quote Ezekiel, “You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness (Hebrew evel, yes, where we get ‘evil’) was found in you.”
TMK on December 16, 2008 at 1:48 PM
The myth of Bacchus did not plagiarize Jesus Christ, but did plagiarize the very ancient promise of a Messiah. It is a fact that the worship of one God predates both Judaism and Christianity, and that the promise of a Messiah was part of that faith.
For some reason, every time a pagan corollary to a Christian story or person is found, the immediate presumption is that the Christian faith plagiarized the pagan. Many times, it is the Christian faith that is based on the original, and the pagan that came afterward. In other cases, both are based on the same event, such as the many flood stories found in every culture under the sun.
tom on December 16, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Catholics also believe that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life. My wife, who is a recovering Catholic practically gets violent whenever I mention the possibility of Jesus having brothers and sisters.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM
I understand the purpose…it is the intent I wrestle with. But regardless, the promoters still cling to the ol line of “I buy it for the articles”, and the “Women are always classy”.
That’s why Toy r Us advertises with them…
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Tom,
In reading the story of Dionysus I see birth, death and rebirth…
…but I don’t see ANY indication of Dionysus being a messiah – a redemptive figure.
If anything, Dionysus represents chaos and madness.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 2:05 PM
“When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”
“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.”
Sin is a result of temptation being allowed to progress into desire and finally lawless action, not heredity. We do not have a high priest that could not be tempted, but we have one that could resist temptation and resist sinning. God cannot be tempted, but Christ could, because He was also a man. What’s the point?
“For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.”
TMK on December 16, 2008 at 2:12 PM
So she’s not a fan of James?
Spoken like someone who’s never seen a Playboy. How would you know?
Except these women aren’t being photographed in brothels. The venues are just as clean as any other photo shoot. The only difference is the lack of clothes, and sometimes these women are even covered up where it counts.
But you really have no idea, because you haven’t seen one and instead choose to insult me to make up for your ignorance on the subject.
Again, completely missing the point.
And what do you think people used before cameras? Likely the paintings we now show little children as examples of high art.
Sincerely, if you had a painter on one side, and a photographer on the other, both looking at the same one, the former would be considered art while the latter porn.
I’m not saying that men don’t get sexually aroused by Playboy. I’m merely saying that the pictures are artful, respectful of women and just as tasteful as the statue of David.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM
A whoremonger with a paintbrush is still a whoremonger.
TMK on December 16, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Right, cause that’s the new qualification for what’s tasteful.
I guess that makes Hot Air tasteless.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 2:20 PM
So again, Michelangelo was really just a pimp?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 2:22 PM
I’m not making a distinction between photographs and paintings.
I’m making a distinction in the INTENT and PURPOSE of said photographs and pictures.
And I guess we just have different experiences with Playboy.
Because my college buddies and I, back when I was IN undergrad, certainly didn’t read it because of it’s “tasteful” pictures.
And I’m unsure of the connection of photos meant to incite lust and photos that are ‘respectful’ of women.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 2:23 PM
The Blessed Virgin Mary did NOT have any other children. She was a lifelong virgin. Brother purely meant relative (such as Abraham’s brother(actually his nephew)Lot)..
Martin Luther, John Calvin and Zwingli all interpreted the Scriptures correctly regarding the ever virginity of St. Mary. They all believed she was ever virgin.
The false teaching of the non ever virginity of the Virgin Mary was not a tenet of the founders of the protestant churches..it is a false interpretation that originated within the past 50 or so years.
That’s the problem with protestantism: Not only is there no continuity or Apostolic Succession in protestant churches…every protestant church(and even every member within each protestant church) all disagree with each other on interpretations of the Holy Scripture and every protestant in a way, assumes the role of god in their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
The truth is, there ARE correct interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. When the Orthodox Church canonized the Holy Bible, many of the Saints wrote commentaries along with it containing the proper interpretations handed down from the Apostles.
Also the Orthodox Church does NOT believe the false Roman doctrine of the immaculate conception of St. Mary the Theotokos.
It is an unecessary doctrine because the Orthodox Church has never taught the false concept of Original Sin either.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Nor are you making a distinction between Playboy and Hustler.
Well, reading really has nothing to do with pictures, so I’m sure that’s true. But other than the women being naked, maybe you could explain to me what’s so tasteless about them?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I don’t get why people think she needs to be a virgin. What’s wrong with a married woman having sex with her husband? Why would that somehow make her less than what she was?
And God would sure be cruel to push Joseph into marrying a woman who would never have sex with him.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Don’t but DO remember you think Senor Juan McVain could help the republicans….but I digress with facts.
Like I said earlier, Huges & Air Kisses
Branch Rickey on December 16, 2008 at 2:33 PM
This reminds me of a line from the movie Dogma: “The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that’s just plain gullibility.”
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I wasn’t aware I needed to.
Do we really need to discuss levels or degrees of sinfulness?
You mean other than that whole “pose the woman in such a way to incite the most lust and sexual titillation” part?
I’m unaware how Christians can call ‘lust’ ‘tasteful’.
Here again I refer you back to Matthew 5:27-28.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 2:38 PM
OKay, I get, analogies confuse you, I will stay away from them when posting to you.
Try this:
Look at who advertises, and you will see who their target is…yes I know Rolex and others advertise up front, but look towards the back and tell me their target.
Take out the pictures of the women, then would you let your kids read the magazine…oops, another near analogy.Would you want your kids to read the advertising in Playboy?
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Because that is the CORRECT interpretation.
Joseph was an incredibly OLD man and he was a widower.
You know he was dead long before Jesus Christ was 30 right?
There is also an OT analogy regarding something that once God occupied it..no one was to ever occupy it again.
It was NOT punishment..only a carnal minded modern person would think that.
Was it a punishment for Christ to remain a monastic?
What about St. John the Baptist and other Old testament Saints?
The Blessed Virgin Mary was a temple of the Living God (She housed Christ within her…She is the prototype of all Christians and the most blessed among women and the Saints)
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 2:43 PM
I don’t get why people think she needs to be a virgin. What’s wrong with a married woman having sex with her husband? Why would that somehow make her less than what she was?
And God would sure be cruel to push Joseph into marrying a woman who would never have sex with him.
–So, Esthier, you think God wasn’t cruel to have stuck Joseph with a woman who was knocked up by someone else? I’m not so sure Joseph had it easy in any event. He had a son that (apparently) really didn’t consider his parents’ feelings when he said things at church or in public; a son that wandered around begging off others for food; a son that considered someone else his Father; etc. You don’t read anything about Joseph weeping when He was crucified, do you?
Any chance that the Playboy Bunny’s name was Maria, BTW?
jim m on December 16, 2008 at 2:44 PM
I’m not discussing sinfulness. Maybe that’s the disconnect.
Actually, I wanted something less vague. For instance, if she’s bending over and spreading them, that’s one thing. That’s obvious, and that’s degrading.
But if she’s just standing there, maybe giving you a suggestive look and not crossing her arms over her chest, then it’s far from degrading. And I see no difference between that and the painting at the link I posted earlier.
From my experience (albeit brief), these women weren’t any in any overtly sexual poses. Had they been clothed, you could easily have mistaken them for models in a Sears catalog.
I’m doing no such thing. I’m looking at the pictures as a whole, not what people are doing with them.
People can lust after the famous Madonna painting, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t tasteful.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 2:45 PM
That’s why r2b why I normally just skip past “esthier’s”
innocuous, long-winded self-indulgencesposts.Just an FYI, imao.
Branch Rickey on December 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Seriously, don’t insult my intelligence while confusing guess and get and commas and periods.
Why would I ever want my hypothetical kids to read any advertising?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 2:47 PM
It wouldn’t be the end of the world if they did.
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 2:48 PM
So old men can’t have sex? Is it immoral or something? Abraham didn’t seem to have a problem getting it on with his wife (and her servant) at 100.
So God occupied her vagina? I’ve only once heard someone argue that, and she was an atheist who was trying to be provocative.
Only someone who distorts the gift of God that is sex would think it’s sinful inside a marriage. And I never said it was punishment anyway.
They didn’t get married.
So married Christian women shouldn’t have sex with their husbands as Paul commands or as God did (be fruitful)?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Kinda hard to cry when you’re dead.
And God didn’t force Joseph to do anything.
I’m not arguing that he had it easy. No one does.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Didn’t Isis have her own show in the 1970s w/ a theme song and everything?
I would have pegged you as being a much younger troll then one who remembers that show from the ’70s…
Branch Rickey on December 16, 2008 at 2:53 PM
BTW, I don’t see anything in the Bible about Joseph being a very old man or a widower when he married Mary. Do you have a verse that says that?
jim m on December 16, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Oh, how sweet. Did you just wake up this morning and decide to insult as many people on Hot Air as you could?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 2:53 PM
My recollection is that Joseph isn’t mentioned much. Do you have a verse saying he died before Jesus was crucified?
jim m on December 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Honestly, it’s not an issue I care enough about to even Google search. He could have been ten years her junior for all I care.
Though I won’t be surprised if Olaf comes up with something.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Should have had “it” after get…but once again, you decide not to answer when the answer would undermine your argument.
See? I knew analogies would confuse you, but I just can’t post simple enough for you to understand. Yes, you may not have kids, but IF you did, would you….never mind, you won’t get it.
End of discussion with you.
I am taking Branch Ricky’s advise.
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 2:56 PM
The Catholic answer is that he’s a brother in Christ, just as the rest of us are, not a physical, blood brother.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Is just having sex being fruitful or is it having sex for the purpose of being fruitful?
You’re missing the point.
The Blessed Virgin Mary was in a state of Theosis.
If she wouldn’t have chosen to accept Christ He wouldn’t have been born.
She had overome the world or the passions. (sexual lust is a passion and is of the world.)
“The world is the general name for all the passions. When we wish to call the passions by a common name, we call them the world. But when we wish to distinguish them by their special names, we call them the passions. The passions are the following: love of riches, desire for possessions, bodily pleasure from which comes sexual passion, love of honour which gives rise to envy, lust for power, arrogance and pride of position, the craving to adorn oneself with luxurious clothes and vain ornaments, the itch for human glory which is a source of rancour and resentment, and physical fear. Where these passions cease to be active, there the world is dead; for though living in the flesh, they did not live for the flesh. See for which of these passions you are alive. Then you will know how far you are alive to the world, and how far you are dead to it”
St. Isaac the Syrian
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Well, believe me, the poses in Playboy range from coy to “come here, I want to f*&^ you.”
However, even the coy ones are meant to convey sexuality and an objectification of women (they’re meat puppets useful only in satisfying men’s lustful urges).
Yes, there’s beauty, but that’s the thing about sin – it’s often the most beautiful and enticing thing out there.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 2:59 PM
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Where’s your textual authority for the claim that Mary remained a virgin the rest of her life?
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Never said the end of the world, but no problem with your 10 yr. olds looking at those ads in the back of Playboy?…your choice as to what culture you expose them to, that’s the beauty of being a parent.
Of course, out of wedlock birth is out of control, and along with that is a high drop out rate in high school…but hey, let them read, it won’t end the world.
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Hew more often then not, does not have one…he will just ignore you. He thinks mis-quoting the bible is not a problem.
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Why is it the correct interpretation? Just because your branch of the church claims that it, and it alone knows how to properly interpret scripture? Is this the same Catholic church that somehow found a way to justify indulgences?
We do not know that Joseph was an incredibly old man or that he was a widower. We know that there is no mention of Joseph after the Jesus getting lost at the temple incident. From the Jesus’s charge to John at the cross, we can presume that Joseph was dead at that point, we have no evidence that he was dead before, much less long before Jesus began his ministry.
BTW, even old guys can enjoy sex.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Well, how is that different from paintings of nudes that show a woman’s sensuality and beauty?
That’s because your question was ridiculous.
Look, I’ve defended you on posts only because I agreed with you. The truth is that your arguments really aren’t ever half as clever as you think they are. Most times people are right to ridicule them even if they’re cruel for doing so.
Completely fine with me.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM
The bible is pretty clear that Joseph was dead before Jesus was crucified.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Now you are getting silly.
Come on. YOu are making the claim, back it up with scripture.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM
For the purpose of this discussion, it really doesn’t matter. Had she had procreative sex, you’re still saying that would have been wrong.
So it’s sinful for a woman to sleep with her husband?
Why won’t you answer?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM
There are Catholic traditions that maintain this, but there is nothing in scripture to back up the belief.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:09 PM
My daughter was born out of wedlock, and I’m not ashamed of that anymore – she has changed my whole life in so many ways. I’m not going to harp on her about how “disgraceful” out of wedlock births are, because she is not a punishment, but a wonderful gift.
Do I go out of the way to show my kids adult material? No. We do our best to keep it locked up, but in the case of accidental viewing, we talk about it and send them on their merry way. My 5yo thinks the above-mentioned pictures are pretty, but Daddy has since learned to lock his laptop. No harm, no foul… but please remember, we’re not raising our children as Christians. My family has a different view on these things.
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM
No, very clearly it would be, because then they’d see a naked woman, and that’s just as bad as little children being raped.
The more I come here, the less I’m convinced that the religious right deserves to be defended. I see less and less self proclaimed Christians showing anything but hatred and arrogance in these threads.
I grew up with such nice and well reasoned people that I was actually under the impression that people like that didn’t really exist except in the twisted imaginations of liberals.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM
While on the cross, Jesus charges the beloved disciple (usually assumed to be John) to take care of Mary. This would only have been done had Joseph been dead.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:11 PM
No been up for hours. I thought I would pass along some neighborly advice to r2b about a
other poster who tends to be a blowhard and stretches for an argument a good portion of the time; and not too worry about that
poster, because I think often that other poster might post something, um, irrelevant or insane, or something to that effect?
Branch Rickey on December 16, 2008 at 3:12 PM
As I thought, you have no authorative documentation for your beliefs.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM
I think you already beat me to the punch long ago, Branch.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:15 PM
No difference if said paintings were meant to titillate and incite lust in those viewing them.
That said, not all photographs and paintings are meant for this purpose.
Those in Playboy, though, are.
And it doesn’t really matter if they are ‘classier’ then the pictures in Penthouse, Hustler or Big Boobs Monthly.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM
YOu are going to let the passions of one or two people color your opinion of everyone in an entire political movement?
That’s neither logical, nor very tolerant.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »