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 | printer-friendly
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 »
Scripture is authority, everything else is nothing more than one man’s opinion.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM
There are numerous Scriptures throughout the Old Testament and even the book of Revelations prophecying or describing the Virgin birth and Ever virginity of Mary.
The best way to understand it is this:
Not only is St. Mary the new Eve….She is the ark of the New covenant.
The Old testament Scriptures referring to the non defilement of the ark and the fact that they are never occupied by a man after housing God are referring to St. Mary in a way.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I don’t know how long you’ve been here, but it’s far more than two people, and the number seems to be growing daily.
That said, you are right. It’s just becoming harder to convince myself. This isn’t the Body of Christ, Jesus had in mind, the is far closer to the woman who was ripped into 12 pieces after being raped to death. I can’t defend against that no matter how much I want to.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:21 PM
It would make sense that Mary remained a virgin her entire life – otherwise, why refer to her as The Virgin Mary?
Never gave much thought to it before, though.
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 3:23 PM
But how do you judge intent? And why should that really matter anyway?
I said personally that I don’t find those pictures in the least bit arousing. So why can’t I use those pictures for my own purpose, as a celebration of the female form or whatever it means to me personally?
Once I buy them, aren’t they mine and no longer the photographers?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Yawn… This topic is like asking the question, “is water wet?”
Duh… Playboy offends. (that’s a period there) Big deal, who cares, it’s not like any one cares what they say over there… Umm I mean I read it for the articles.
bigskinny on December 16, 2008 at 3:23 PM
If that is your position, then you cannot trust the authenticity of the Bible either..
The Holy bible was CANONIZED by the Orthodox Church.
If you believe that it is authentic, then you believe in the authenticity of the Holy Synods of the Orthodox Church.
I didn’t say that. You yourself pointed out what God commanded in Genesis..be fruitful and multiply.
Does that imply that sex for non procreative purposes is ok?
No.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Tradition, experience and reason can also be authoritative…
…if and ONLY if they do not directly contradict scripture.
And I believe that the idea of a perpetually virgin Mary DOES contradict scripture.
Not only in the mention of His brother James, but in Matthew 13:54-54:
(Emphasis mine)
My understanding here is that some Catholic theologians have somehow decided that these brothers and sisters are Joseph’s children from a previous marriage and not from his union with Mary.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Thanks, good answer.
Don’t take the comment about out of wedlock personal…for you it worked out, but for most others it does not.
I don’t think anyone argues that out of wedlock is a blessing on our society…70% in some areas.
What I was talking about specifically is the graphic nature of the ads, the homosexual, S & M, all the other alternative ads are not what most people would subject their children to, you don’t have that problem.
It is not a question of religion, it is a question of standards. Religion has a list of standards to gauge yourself against, and secular has no list, except the ones they make up, and mostly from the religious standards.
That is the wonderful part of being a secular, you can do what you want, raise your kids how you want, and there is no real standard, except the one you create.
The burden of being a Christian is being compared to that standard, and knowing you will fall short, but always striving to obtain it. And of course when you fall short the secular can point out how “hypocritical” you are.
So I can understand why people are drawn to the secular life, the choices are much easier, and you won’t be compared to any standard, since you have control of that.
In fact that is the argument liberals have, they state because so many conservatives spout out values that it is fair game to attack when they fail, however they say you can’t attack them because they don’t espouse those standards.
It’s a win win for them, a lose lose for the faithful…
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 3:25 PM
No, it’s silent on the subject. (Though Paul wasn’t. He said to never deny your spouse sex.)
But again, you’re saying Mary couldn’t even have sex for procreation. Why? Is there something sinful about procreative sex?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Abraham called Lot his brother, he was actually his nephew.
There many other examples of the same thing throughout the Holy Scriptures. It does not mean literal brother.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 3:27 PM
+1
Branch Rickey on December 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Intent always matters when it comes to discussions of sin and theology.
Intent is exactly what Jesus was getting at in His “It has been said…but I say…” sayings.
In fact, in a very general sense it is the INTENT of a thing that either makes it a sin or not. Some killings are sinful, others are not. The difference is in the intent. I can look upon a woman, but if I look upon her with lust, then it’s a sin.
I didn’t realize that the whole point of this discussion was whether you could buy those pictures and do with them what you please.
Of course you can.
But to argue that the pictures in Playboy aren’t sexually provocative (read – lustful) is just fanciful thinking.
Playboy makes it very, very clear what the purpose of it’s pictures are for.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 3:30 PM
You’re right but he was talking about sex for procreative purposes.
Sex for non procreative purposes is misuse of sex, then it is only to fullfill our PASSIONS.
The PASSIONS are the world, and in order to reach Theosis we must overcome the world.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 3:30 PM
It was CANONIZED as Latin, therefore it is not accurate.
Only the original text could be considered accurate…
sorry to burst your bubble, but canonized only means man said it was so…
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Paul didn’t say, “only if you can both have children.” He never mentioned having children at all there.
Sex is a gift. It’s meant to be enjoyed.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:33 PM
So, because one person called someone a brother when he wasn’t…
..then ALL instances then are like this?
Thus James and John weren’t brothers?
And neither were Jacob and Esau?
The context of Matthew 13 really doesn’t give us any other way to look at it.
The whole point of that scripture was that the people were not able to see past the kid they used to know and whose family (including brothers and sisters) still live there.
While the belief that these kids were Joseph’s from a previous marriage is a pretty far-out one…
…it at least understands that these people where actually brothers and sisters to Jesus.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 3:33 PM
I understand your response, but I think you might be a tad faulty when thinking that if I’m not (or anyone for that matter) raising my children in a Judeo-Christain religion, that we must be secular. Not all religions have gods, and although I do not believe in God, I do have a spiritual element in my life. I wish I could do what I want, but I cannot – I have not used my lack of your religion to justify much more than not attending church on my birthday with my inlaws this year. Many are like me, but you’d never know because they are not vocal about their beliefs. The ones that are typically are more, well, militant.
To be honest, it was easier to live as a Christian growing up, because the rules are right there, tidy in a little book. The path I have chosen is a bit more ambiguous, to say the least.
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Then again I have already very clearly pointed out that the Virgin Mary is the ARK of the New Covenant and pointed out the analogies regarding how the ark of the old testament was treated in regards to similarities with her.
Monasticism is about holiness.
Jesus Christ was a monastic. There is nothing wrong with monasticism. Only to this culture there is.
One can be Holy and be married and have procreative sex…but the Ark of the New Covenant cannot.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM
I completely agree and have made that argument myself. I think that’s the whole point of not being under the law as well. Rules are for people who don’t know right from wrong.
That said, isn’t the intent of the person looking at the pictures more important for the purposes of this discussion?
Well, they aren’t to me. I can’t speak for anyone else.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Again many instances in the Bible describe women or men who were barren…but they would still have sex for procreative purposes, keep trying and pray for a miracle.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Since when do those who practice that get married?
Well, that one’s a little more obvious. They were fighting in the womb after all.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM
It was NOT canonized in Latin.
It was canonized in GREEK.
The Orthodox are the original Church not the Romans. The Romans changed their doctrine and split from the Apostolic Tradition and the Apostolic Church.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM
There’s one OT passage prophesying a virgin birth. As to the rest, there are none that directly predict it, just a few that are stretched so far beyond recognition that only a few can see it.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM
So women who have gone through menopause or women who have no uterus, they’re just supposed to pray that one day God will make them pregnant?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM
There are several instances of Married couple Saints
who took vows of celibacy.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Because when it mattered, she was a virgin.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:41 PM
The point, I thought, of this discussion was whether or not all nude pictures and paintings were tasteful and OK.
We quickly excised Penthouse and Hustler from that discussion (rightfully so), but got hung up on the difference between Playboy and Michelangelo.
Now, I can’t vouch for what others are trying to say or argue…
…but I believe the INTENT of the paintings and pictures distinguish them.
Thus Playboy and Michelangelo are NOT similar.
But neither are you the target audience.
I’m not excited by the pictures in Playgirl…
…but that doesn’t mean they weren’t created with the express intention of sexually exciting the girls and women who looked at them.
And whether or not they succeed in this seems to be less an issue of artistic merit and more of a failure to do what was meant to be done.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 3:42 PM
I can’t remember the term, but these things can be used for teaching, but they are not considered authorative.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:42 PM
And people are often named after defining features even if those features aren’t apart of their life their entire life.
Thomas only doubted Jesus once, but he still got the Doubting Thomas nickname.
Then why get married?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Yes but Christ’s birth was miraculous..The Theotokos felt no pain(NEW EVE) and upon examination she was a virgin afterwards.
It is very important that the Virgin Mary was ever virgin.
Like I pointed out earlier..Luther,Calvin,Zwingli(the founders of protestanism) ALL believed St. Mary was EVER VIRGIN.
This new interpretation did not originate with them but from who knows who, 50-60 years ago.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 3:44 PM
You mean it isn’t in the original Aramic or Hebrew?
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM
My mother-in-law used to joke about our boys being like Jacob and Esau – we used to watch them fight in my stomach when I was on bed-rest. I’m just glad my sons aren’t as antagonistic as the Biblical counterparts. I’d never understood how babies could fight in-utero until I experienced it myself.
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM
As always, provide scriptural support for your nonsense.
Saying that some dude hundreds of years later that other dudes found impressive, doesn’t impress me.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:48 PM
The New Testament was written in Greek.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and translated in a very accurate way to Greek..it’s called the Septuagint.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM
The belief that Moses parted the Red Sea is based on a translation error in the Greek text. The Aramaic version says Reed Sea, which is at the mouth of the Nile.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM
No, not at all, at least that wasn’t my point.
I guess I was hoping for a more concrete answer.
Studies have shown that women often reaction similarly to porn depicting men, women and men and women. Lest I be insulted further, I’ll just leave it at that.
OK. Well, speaking abstractly, do you think a picture can be both sensual and artistic?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Maybe easier for you, but for most much more difficult…you can pick and choose what not to do, without answering or feeling you are going to answer to a higher authority. And the book I read is not as “tidy”, just look at the comments by “Christians” on this thread.
Ambiguous, because that is what you have chosen, unfortunately you can’t have both.
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 3:53 PM
That is crazy. And kinda cool. I’ve never really thought about the fighting inside the womb much. I know babies kick, so it stands to reason they’d kick each other. I imagine that must have felt so strange.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Mark it seems like you have no response for my earlier post.
If you doubt the Holy Synods of the Orthodox Church then you cannot believe that the Bible is accurate.
The Holy Bible was canonized by the Orthodox Church’s Holy Synod.
Also if you claim the Bible is authoritive..
How come you believe that the Church that Christ created ceased to exist in the form that He created it and with apostolic Succession and laying of hands from bishop to Bishop?
Also, Christ clearly said His Church would prevail and not be destroyed. Do you not believe Him?
Also what about a literal interpretation of the Eucharist?
And what about Christ’s command for us to fast?
Do you take a literal interpretation of those too?
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Apparently you didn’t know…it was the last 20 or 30 years that they could perfectly accuratly interpret all the Hebrew passages and words…the advent of the computer helped greatly and a huge grant to UCI for ancient language studies.
Really some minor changes, but still not totally accurate even to this day…something about man and man not being perfect maybe?
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Redemptive, no. And the feasts of Bacchus that became famous had nothing to do with morality.
But the original myth of Bacchus involved his flesh being torn to shreds, and being reborn. And I believe the idea was that he was torn to shreds for bringing joy to mankind, somewhat like Prometheus was punished for giving mankind fire.
If you want more detail, you could look in the book, “The Two Babylons.” Of course, as it dives deep into mythology and ancient religions, it necessarily involves huge amounts of speculation.
Quite honestly, much of the book is based on things that can never be proven one way or the other. It raises a lot more questions than answers. The one thing it made clear, though, is that ancient mythology was far more complicated, and the pagan religions far more related, than I had realized. That is, many of the pagan religions shared some of the same gods and goddesses. Bacchus was not just a Greek and Roman god.
I’m guessing that the idea of being killed and reborn is why levstrauss brought it up.
tom on December 16, 2008 at 3:58 PM
I’m not exactly how much more concrete you can get besides intention?
What else is there to discuss – which body parts are shown and are they spread for the camera?
I think it’s a pretty BIG distinction between something that was created to instill a sense of awe, beauty and appreciation…
…and something that was created to help you masturbate.
1) That doesn’t seem to HELP your point.
2) I was unaware that I had been insulting you in this discussion. I certainly have not intended to do so.
I think we really need to end our conversation here, not out of anger or frustration…
…but out of an understanding that what we are getting into are basic definitions of words that really have subjective definitions.
What is sensual and is it different from lustful?
What is artistic (and isn’t THIS particular question one that has been going on for millenia)?
Personally, I think porn can be artistic, but that doesn’t make it any better nor any less sinful.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 3:59 PM
And neither is the Bible perfect too.
It is the centerpiece of the Holy Tradition spoken of by the Apostles. “Whether by word of mouth or by our epistles” remember?
It is not meant to be taken out of context or interpreted with widely varying interpretations outside of the Holy Tradition.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 4:00 PM
I thought it was because of the one story where Zeus looked at the human who was pregnant was his child, showing his true face, and she died, thus a reference to man not being able to see God’s face.
I get what you’re saying here, but the books in the Bible were at least written by people who were Christ’s contemporaries.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 4:00 PM
Actually, there are parts of the Hebrew Bible (Daniel, Ezra, and some other parts) that were written in Aramaic.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Yes, I chose it, and while it is hard, it is very fufilling. But do not think that I believe my choices do not have greater consequences – they do, they’re just not monitored by a worshipped deity.
I just take issue with your initial assumption, that if one is not Christian or Jewish (or possibly Muslim), that one is secular and lives by the seat of their pants. Our morals can be similar, I just don’t put as much emphasis on sexual mores as you do. I wouldn’t murder, steal, or inflict harm on another – I don’t need God to tell me that.
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Hmmmm….
…our typical anti-Christian trolls are M.I.A. (and have been since last evening).
Just one of those things…
…or did Allah do some ‘cleaning up’?
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Well, if the King James let’s say is more accurate then the Orthodox version…which one would you follow?
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM
You’re right.
The first Bible was actually compiled by heretics who used spurious books that weren’t written by contemporaries(and some real books with parts taken out) and disagreed with the teachings of the Holy Tradition spoken of by the Aposltes..
The Bible was canonized as a response to combat the heresy (and included only contemporaries)…
The letters were in wide use before that but there was no Bible for hundreds of years.
How was Christian faith transmitted before then?
By Holy Tradition,icons and the passing of the unaltered baton of the Faith.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Nothing graphic, but yes. Something that stands outside of subjectivity.
My point in saying that is only that women are scientifically aroused even by their own gender. So Playboy, Playgirl, it shouldn’t matter.
You haven’t, and I apologize for implying that I was talking about you, as I didn’t mean that at all and only now realize my comment was thoughtless in that regard.
You’ve been very respectful, even when we got into a rather heated discussion the other day, and I very much appreciate that.
I was referencing people who aren’t even here but who try to piece together my “sinful” life based on comments they’ve misunderstood.
I think that’s the key question.
What about porn that a married couple make in the privacy of their own home for their own enjoyment?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Well nothing is more accurate than the Greek New Testament held by the Orthodox Church, but the KJV is remarkably accurate. The New King James is the best in modern english.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Well, if God exists, then technically they are, but I think that’s me being nitpicky. I think you mean that they aren’t rules that came from a worshiped diety.
…or
Possible, but I doubt it. He usually announces when he’s banned someone.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 4:15 PM
And I think different people have different answers to that question.
Like what the SCOTUS said about porn – I can’t define it but I know it when I see it.
Well, THAT seems like a whole OTHER kettle of fish.
Lust is a sin, but being aroused by your spouse isn’t.
I would also hate to use the word ‘lust’ toward how one views their spouse since ‘lust’ usually connotes a rather sinful carnality and is wrapped solely around the sex act.
But here I am getting philosophical and theological and I understand that others may feel differently.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Well, you don’t know much about my sexual mores (I doubt they are much different, unless you are okay with your hubby doing your neighbor, or you think your daughter/son is okay to have sex at 15).
The only hiccup, is that when you want to bend the rules, you can because you have no authority but yourself.
And no, you don’t need God to tell you that now, he laid that law down thousands of years ago…you are just relying on others to hold the law in place.
I guess I don’t understand someone saying they follow the rules, but don’t believe in the rule maker, and they follow some of the rules, but not all the rules…still the unanswered question (a rhetorical not a challenge), who decides what rules and when? You already decided the S & M ads are okay for a child to see, so that one you have discarded, I guess you could take them as they come up and accept or eliminate…or have a game plan that you practice weekly, or at least often, and instead of reacting, you then are a pro-active parent. Then the child and parent are in tune…however I guess discussing this ad-lib around the table or in the evening could work if you were really disciplined. At least you covered 3 out of 10.
And when you say consequences, consequences to whom?
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Yeah, but I’ve never been satisfied with that answer either.
That’s the whole point (for me anyway). I’m just tossing these ideas out.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Not an accurate statement, though about the best I can expect from you.
The council of Nicea was asked to determine which of the various Gospels in circulation at that time were authentative and which weren’t. There judgement was based on those Gospels that were most widely in circulation, in addition to all the known letters of Paul.
Hardly the mystical process that you espouse. Not a single one of the documents that you worship were even written at the time. The fact that hundreds of years later a handfull of corrupted earthly lords tried to cover their backsides by writting and cannonizing texts that told the story they wished people to believe is not an authoratative process.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Obviously, you can include Orthodox church members with the Catholics who get offended by the suggestion that Mary had more children. Which makes sense, in that the Orthodox Church was just the eastern half of the Catholic Church. That entity split along political lines more than anything else. Doctrinally, they’re very similar, at least to the outsider.
Of course, as a Baptist, I don’t have to try to force myself to accept such claims as the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible in a couple of places speaks of the brothers of Jesus, who were James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. (Judas was a very common name of the time.) It was well known to the early church that the man they called James the Just was the brother of Jesus. The only thing the Bible actually says is that the firstborn, Jesus, was born of a virgin.
The claim that this idea just sprung up in the last 50 years is ludicrous. The Reformers taught Sola Scriptura, and in Scripture alone there is nothing that teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
Not quite. The actual teaching is that each believer is a priest, not a god, as said in the scriptures. It’s called priesthood of the believer. I don’t raise the point to argue it, since that’s way off topic, just to clarify.
While clarifying, Baptists and presumably most Calvinistic Protestants believe in an inherited sin nature, but this is a very different thing from the “Original Sin” doctrine taught by the Catholic church, which taught that a) sex is always sinful b) God permits this sin for reproduction, and c) therefore, each person is born sinful because it took a sinful act to bring them into the world. I don’t even know if the Catholic church still teaches this doctrine, but it’s not accepted anywhere else that I know of. That doctrine probably explains the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception, since Mary would be a sinner by their doctrine of Original Sin, unless she was Immaculately Conceived.
tom on December 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Are women seriously defending Playboy as tasteful because the pictures aren’t as raunchy as other porn?
Please. Intent matters. Anybody in their right mind knows that the point of those pictures is to spank it. Playboy is the epitome of low culture. Calling it “tasteful” sets the bar for taste pretty frighteningly low.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 16, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Really, I think the NIV is more accurate for me, the Orthodox is great (if you read Greek, just remember the NT was both Greek and Aramic, and a different Greek then the modern Greek), just archaic and many better interpretations have come along the last 20 years.
Holman Christian Standard Bible is a good one, English Standard Version is excellent, the official Orthodox study bible uses the King James as their New Testament study bible.
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Mostly because they aren’t raunchy period.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 4:39 PM
I don’t know, it seems to fit the problem.
Each of us has a different definition and it’s hard to articulate what the difference is.
Sure, it’s easy to differentiate between Hustler’s graphic, almost gynecological, photos and Michelangelo.
But what about Cosmo (the magazine)for example?
Tasteful sensuality or over-sexualized trite?
That’s a little more nebulous and is probably dependent on the sub-culture of the area you live in.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Not much there…they used the original texts, as much as they had them.
It started 500 years earlier with Gregory. The texts were heavily researched, and when some of the original texts were found (1,000 years later), they matched perfectly.
What came out of the councils, were amazing accuracy of texts that have stood the test of time.
You have read to many “gossip” stories about the formation of the bible and its text.
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Worse than Playboy for sure and far worse than Hustler because it pretends to be something it is not.
Just my opinion.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 4:41 PM
‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
It seems like you do not know your own history.
Do you want more quotes from Protestant founders on the perpetual virginity of the blessed Virgin Mary?
The fact is this new and false interpretation that St. Mary was not ever virgin is 50-60 years old max and invented by who knows who?
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Likely someone who put two and two together.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 4:45 PM
It doesn’t say she kept it either.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 4:45 PM
RE: Playboy:
Esthier, I just deleted a VERY lengthy reply I had written. I was pleased with the way it was worded, and I think it made a great case for why “tasteful” doesn’t apply to Playboy.
Instead, though, I’ll pose a simple question: would you think it was tasteful if it were your daughter in the picture? Remember, it is masturbatory material for – what, hundreds of thousands of men? Millions?
If you would still think it tasteful, even if it were your daughter, I don’t see there’s any common ground for discussion.
In fact, Christian or not (I am, as it happens), I’d say anyone who thinks Playboy is okay but wouldn’t want his wife or daughter posing for it is a much bigger hypocrite than any I’ve EVER met in church.
RegularJoe on December 16, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Actually, the question of which gospels to use had ALREADY been decided (and had been for a couple hundred years).
The Canonization of the texts was merely a formality and in response to Marcion creating his OWN canon.
No new books of scripture were written at (or around the time) of Nicea.
The last NT book written was Revelation which dates back to the mid-90’s CE.
The gospels date back earlier than that.
Mark is believed to be the earliest gospel written and most scholars put it in the late 60’s early 70’s CE.
Matthew and Luke is usually dated to around 80 CE, with John being in the 90’s.
That said, there are many scholars who favor earlier dates, but unless/until we find older manuscripts, we’ll never know for sure.
Now, earlier than even the gospels are the epistles. The earliest epistle being Galatians written in the late 40’s CE.
Again, the Council of Nicaea did not CREATE anything, it simply formalized what had ALREADY been created and been in use for a couple hundred years.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Sigh…
It DOES say that she did considering her role as the Ark of the New Covenant.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Sorry, was away cleaning up an exploded light bulb.
Consequences to the balance of things. Have you heard of Taoism? That’s the closest organized religion to my belief system. I believe we’re all inter-connected, that there’s a binding force in the universe, and that if I do something to upset the balance (say, killing my neighbor), then I have thrown things out of whack. I will be punished by the law, and my own balance may never be restored. There’s more to it, but I don’t have it in me to go on about it now, but yes, I do believe in consequences. I don’t know that anyone besides psycopaths believes their actions have no consequences.
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 4:52 PM
I was referencing StOlaf’s claim that the latter cannonizations of the writtings of Orthodox “saints” has equal weight with the Cannonization of the NT Gospels.
MarkTheGreat on December 16, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Luther also said that Jews were the scourge of mankind…I am a Lutheran, but Luther and other men are not the final authority.
Know is the Greek work ginosko, which means “having sexual intercourse”…noticed the word TILL, denoting it was going to happen.
Jesus was know as the “first born”, not the “only born”. “First born” is used throughout the text to describe the first born of a “brood”, “only born” is used to describe the one and only.
When they talk of his “brothers”, they use the word “adelphos”, from the root delphus meaning womb. Cousin, as some claim is “anepsios”.
Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Which is why the modern translations are so important, those small differences in words did not exist 1500 years ago when Luther was making his pronouncements.
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Sorry, nevermind…
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Catholic and Orthodox tradition may say so…
…but the Bible is silent on the issue of Mary’s continued virginity.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM
I’ll answer your question. If my daughter were 18, and of her own free will and without coersion wanted to pose in Playboy, I would not have a problem with it. I would have a problem with her posing in Hustler, but I personally do not think the two magazines treat women the same.
Same for my sons, I would not be upset if they were to join Chippendales or posed in Playgirl. My skinny one might have to bulk up a bit, though, or else he’d be posing in Skeleton Monthly.
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Here I would concur – porn mags pushing themselves as “women’s mags” are worse than Playboy which is quite up front with what it is.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 5:02 PM
However, just to clarify, the Catholics and Orthodox believe the word could have been “aha” which is Aramic for brother or cousin, or close relative…it is vague why they would mix Aramic and Greek…but Aramic did not have a word for cousin.
Personally, I think that is a stretch, I think they are afraid of changing what they consider “fact”, a point of honor. Because in Armaic often they just referred to aha as a brother, and the cousin as the son of so and so, so and so’s aha.
right2bright on December 16, 2008 at 5:03 PM
It is refreshing to see a logical discussion going on.
Don’t say the “T” word.
kingsjester on December 16, 2008 at 5:05 PM
The picture itself, sure (assuming I had a daughter of course).
Men also masturbate to videos with Palin’s head superimposed on someone else’s body.
If you’re asking whether or not I would teach my hypothetical daughter to keep her clothes on in public, the answer is yes, but that doesn’t mean I don’t find the picture by itself to be tasteful.
Your question lumps what others do with the picture in with what the picture is by itself. I’m just looking at the picture by itself.
I wasn’t under the impression that we had any here anyway.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 5:10 PM
No; I’ll consider the matter settled if you can show me ONE from (the Protestant Canon of) Scripture.
Of course, as I mentioned in another thread, the Orthodox Church holds some extra-scriptural views that Protestants do not necessarily all agree with. You don’t need my permission to believe those things, but I’ll give it in case it matters to you. But the ultimate authority is not what you think, or what Calvin thought, or what Luther thought; it is what scripture SAYS.
To ME it is an unimportant question, and one that is really inappropriate — at least for one who believes, as Scripture says, that apart from Jesus “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” I don’t wish to be indelicate or offensive, but we’re speculating on the sexual activity of other people. Are we really to believe that Mary stood before the Apostles and told them this bit of info? That seems unlikely to me.
I don’t expect you to agree with this any more than I agree with you, but let me explain why this “new” idea might have cropped up in fairly recent times. For quite a long time, we culturally viewed sex — even sex within marriage — as somehow sinful. There are some semi-scriptural reasons for this — primarily “the curse”, I suppose. Whatever the reasons, I believe that there was, out of veneration for Mary, a denial that she would do such a naughty thing.
But that notion of sex as something dirty is never really expressed in scripture, and it doesn’t really jibe with Solomon’s Song. In recent years, at least among Protestants, sex within marriage has come to be viewed much more as a gift God has given to men and women, and less as a sinful act. So it is meant as no insult to Mary or her honor (though we respectfully but vigorously disagree that she was sinless) to consider that she would have had relations with her husband Joseph, and that those relations would have produced other children. It’s no article of faith for me that she DID, mind you; I just won’t agree to any positive statement that she DID NOT.
To quote that great Protestant Rodney King: “Can’t we all just get along?”
RegularJoe on December 16, 2008 at 5:13 PM
And they use the same exact pictures in Maxim, which has always bothered me. And on top of that stress promiscuity as the norm.
Which was really the initial point, not that they don’t both treat them as sexual but that one seems degrading while the other doesn’t (to me anyway).
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 5:16 PM
I know. I agree with you on that. And I agree with you on Maxim… it’s always been off-color, but it seems worse now than it did 5-6 years ago when Tim had a subscription.
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 5:23 PM
I think the better question is: do you think that the Church that Christ founded which He says would NEVER be destroyed originated only 500 years ago(and in the case of those who disagree with the founders of their protestant Church on the perpetual virginity)..50 years ago?
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 5:24 PM
RegularJoe on December 16, 2008 at 4:46 PM
I’ll answer your question. If my daughter were 18, and of her own free will and without coersion wanted to pose in Playboy, I would not have a problem with it…
Same for my sons,…
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Forgive me for challenging you again, because I find this hard to believe.
Would you want to look at these pictures (both your daughters and your sons). You should be anxious to see these tasteful and non-pornographic pictures.
I love my children, and I’ve stuck by them through all sorts of bad decisions; but this would be, by my calculation, a DOOZY.
RegularJoe on December 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM
I think the better question is: do you think that the Church that Christ founded which He says would NEVER be destroyed originated only 500 years ago(and in the case of those who disagree with the founders of their protestant Church on the perpetual virginity)..50 years ago?
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 5:24 PM
With all due respect, and mindful that you will disagree, we don’t consider our Church to have been founded 500 years ago, but almost 2000 years ago. Christ has only one body. Being made up of human parts, it may at times lack coordination (at least here on Earth); but I do believe that “we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.”
We may agree on some points; and where we disagree, at least one of us is wrong. But the Scriptures don’t say that we are saved by being right, or by belonging to a particular denomination, but by faith in Christ.
RegularJoe on December 16, 2008 at 5:32 PM
If they were tasteful, yes, I’d look at them. I’m not embaressed to see family members nakid – and I’m talking about my children, the same ones I’ve seen nakid a billion times. Would I include the pictures in with the rest of my collection of porn – no, I wouldn’t use images of my grown children for that purpose. If others chose too, that’s their business.
I have somewhere in storage a picture of my grandmother, splayed out in her natural glory on a chaise lounge. It’s a beautiful picture, faded into sepia tones with age and exposure, but still a work of art. It looks very similar to pictures I’ve seen in Playboy, and it doesn’t squee me out one bit.
Am I saying I want my kids to grow up to pose for porn, no, even though that’s what you seem to imply. I’m saying that if they did, I would not have a problem with it. I don’t have the same issue with porn as many other commenters here (and it’s okay to not like porn!), so I am looking at this differently than you are. I also wouldn’t think it automatically to be a bad decision.
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 5:34 PM
I spelled naked wrong, twice. *headdesk* Must have been thinking both naked and nekkid (that’s what my kids say).
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 5:35 PM
That’s at the heart of my entire point here.
I’m sure your grandmother intended it as something artful rather than as a tool for “alone time” (seeing as it’s now in your possession anyway), but as you’re saying her picture is no different than what you’ve seen in Playboy.
I should have just let you make my point for me.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 5:41 PM
I’m not sure I follow your logic, and would hate to put words in your mouth; but it sounds like you’re saying that those doctored videos are tasteful…? Otherwise, I’m not sure I understand the point of stating that fact here.
Your comment may have been kidding, so forgive me if it was; but I am a Christian, and you have identified yourself as one, so yes, there should be MUCH common ground.
We should start with this:
You have, I believe, agreed that this material is produced for the purpose of sexual arousal. Based on Biblical teachings about morality, we should be able to agree that it is neither honorable nor right to lead others into temptation. From my perspective, this SHOULD be common ground for Christians; but of course I’ll listen to reasoned disagreement.
RegularJoe on December 16, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Eh, I dunno. I’m typing distracted tonight.
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 5:46 PM
No, not at all. I’m just saying that you can’t control what someone does with a picture.
I suppose a better comparison would be to say that some people masturbate to actual educational texts with naked people in them. Some even look at National Geographic for pictures of tribal women who don’t wear much clothing.
Should being the keyword. I’ve learned here that Christian means drastically different things to different people here. On what I would think we could all agree (that love is paramount) there is still much disagreement.
I was half kidding.
Certainly, though you and I would likely disagree on the issue of arousal. I don’t necessarily equate arousal with lust (necessarily being key though).
My husband may watch a movie (not porn or anything graphic) and be turned on and want to have sex with me, not the actress who got naked. I don’t see any moral harm in that.
Some do, but I don’t want to argue with those who do.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 5:51 PM
If that’s what you are into, I would recommend checking out this book: “Christ the eternal Tao”
http://www.stherman.com/catalog/chapter_three/Tao_book.htm
Unlike most other religions which are based on either demonology or came from a Christian heresy(such as islam/modern judaism etc.)..taoism is one “religion” that could possibly be considered by some to be somewhat of an imperfect, and incomplete prophecy of Christ, to prepare the asiatic people for Christ.
There are some similarities.
For instance Christianity’s name is actually called “The Way”. Christian started out as a kind of derogatory name.
Jesus Christ is the Incarnation of the Logos…..the Word of God..the second part of the Holy Trinity
Another book you might enjoy is this;
“The mountain of silence”
http://www.amazon.com/Mountain-Silence-Search-Orthodox-Spirituality/dp/0385500920/ref=sid_dp_dp
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 5:34 PM
Anna, you and I are clearly very different people. I don’t view sex as dirty; far from it. But I do consider it a precious thing to be saved for one’s spouse (even if one should come to realize this after having “spread it around” for a time). That includes the visual element. I don’t want other men to see my wife naked; and I want my children to have that same deep intimacy for themselves someday. I’m just not sure it’s possible to have that intimacy when half the men she and her husband encounter have seen sexually provocative nude photos of her.
Another clue to the differences between us, if I’ve not taken too great a step in inference — you refer to “the rest of my collection of porn”. It’s a free country, and I like it that way; but all of my comments have been directed toward a Christian attitude toward Playboy. Now, I know there are cafeteria Christians; but please tell me you don’t consider yourself a Christian, AND have a porn collection, AND see no conflict between the two.
RegularJoe on December 16, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Please…..
…let’s not get into this “which church is the one TRUE church” bullspit.
Any church that follows the precepts of Christ is part of the body of Christ.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 5:55 PM
As an aside, thank you for not jumping to conclusions. I appreciate being given the benefit of doubt. You and Zealot are convincing me it’s possible to disagree here and not hate anyone over it.
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 5:55 PM
incomplete thought — “I don’t want other men to see my wife naked”, and it would be hypocritical of me not to extend them (and my wife) the same courtesy.
Sorry.
RegularJoe on December 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Up this page, I explain my beliefs. Definately not a Christian. But with all the back and forth, I’m not dogging on you for missing it. : )
And yes, I collect porn, I’m not afraid to admit it.
Anna on December 16, 2008 at 5:58 PM
She isn’t.
Though I’d like to post a hypothetical. If lust is wrong and lusting is just wanting to have sex with someone who isn’t your spouse, is porn still morally wrong if the “actors” are cartoons and thus not real people that can be lusted after?
Esthier on December 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM
On the other hand, does it make sense that Mary would be married to Joseph for a lifetime and never have sex with him?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to assume that she had a normal marriage after Jesus was born?
The Catholic church elevates Mary into a role of Mediatrix, and that is the primary reason for the claim for her of being a perpetual virgin.
tom on December 16, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »