• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Priest: Playboy cover resembling Mary 'desperate,' 'blasphemous'

ludahai

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
article here

Two reactions to this:

1. She is one beautiful woman.
2. The timing of the picture (the time of the Feast of the Our Lady of Guadelupe, the Patroness of the Americas - a feast day in the US and other Western Hemisphere countries - and incidently the namesake of the church I attend in Taiwan) as well as during the Advent season is troubling, especially given the SPanish title on the magazine and the clothing/atmosphere of the picture. I would regard this as mildly offensive.
 
The timing of the picture (the time of the Feast of the Our Lady of Guadelupe, the Patroness of the Americas - a feast day in the US and other Western Hemisphere countries - and incidently the namesake of the church I attend in Taiwan) as well as during the Advent season is troubling, especially given the SPanish title on the magazine and the clothing/atmosphere of the picture.
Click to expand...

Uh... it's the mexican edition of Playboy. Why wouldn't the title be in spanish? The whole dang magazine's in spanish, because it's for sale in mexico, where most people don't speak english.
Why does that- the language- seem particularly troubling to you?
 
Sheesh, CNN's Rick Sanchez (as usual) isn't conducting an interview. He's supposed to be a journalist soliciting the opinions of others, not taking over the "interview" by spouting his own opinions. His leading and provocative statements were commentary, not journalism.

Anyway, I'm not Catholic so it doesn't offend me. It seems the reaction of the Catholic community is a bit over the top, but then again I'm non-religious so I frequently feel the puffed-up blasphemy allegations of most religions are over the top.
 
1069 said:
Uh... it's the mexican edition of Playboy. Why wouldn't the title be in spanish? The whole dang magazine's in spanish, because it's for sale in mexico, where most people don't speak english.
Why does that- the language- seem particularly troubling to you?
Click to expand...

The fact that it was in Spanish was not troublesome. It is what it SAID that was troublesome.
 
ludahai said:
article here

Two reactions to this:

1. She is one beautiful woman.
2. The timing of the picture (the time of the Feast of the Our Lady of Guadelupe, the Patroness of the Americas - a feast day in the US and other Western Hemisphere countries - and incidently the namesake of the church I attend in Taiwan) as well as during the Advent season is troubling, especially given the SPanish title on the magazine and the clothing/atmosphere of the picture. I would regard this as mildly offensive.
Click to expand...

Ludahai, I understand the offense you take. I myself go back and forth on the issue of art taking liberties with religious iconoclasty. Blasphemy is something I absolutely cringe over. Heresey, I will actually encourage but blasphemy is crossing the line of taking a shot at the Church and actually going after God, Himself. That, I won't abide.

However, I find the line between heresy and blasphemy in art very blurry. Art reflects life and world views. Religion is something that is pervasive in our world views and we are saturated with it everywhere. The same is true of our sexuality. I find this particular piece just to be a hybrid expression of human sexuality and pervasive religious icons. In fact, I find the picture kind of sexy and celebratory of the whole of a woman by incorporating her spirituality with her physicality in one, powerful image. It's a more human expression of womanhood than most art is.

I think we, as Christians, forget that Mary wasn't a virgin forever. Jesus did have a brother and I don't think he was conceived through immaculate conception. I love this image...I think it brings home the status of Mary, not only as an icon, but as a real person, too.

Now a cross in a bottle of feces...that I would not tolerate.
 
ludahai said:
It is what it SAID that was troublesome.
Click to expand...

Get over it. Unless you are saying that your faith or others faith is wavered by what Playboy says.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
I think we, as Christians, forget that Mary wasn't a virgin forever. Jesus did have a brother and I don't think he was conceived through immaculate conception. I love this image...I think it brings home the status of Mary, not only as an icon, but as a real person, too.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. Catholics refer to her as the Eternal Virgin. Jesus did NOT have any brothers (or half-brothers).

Now a cross in a bottle of feces...that I would not tolerate.
Click to expand...

That one was pretty bad, and far more offensive. Note, in the OP, I said I was "mildly offended" by this picture.
 
TheNextEra said:
Get over it. Unless you are saying that your faith or others faith is wavered by what Playboy says.
Click to expand...

That's not what he said at all. It would be so nice to have a discussion about something religious in content without some atheist nut turning it into a full on bitchfest by being a full on dickhead within the first page. Just once.
 
TheNextEra said:
Get over it. Unless you are saying that your faith or others faith is wavered by what Playboy says.
Click to expand...

Again, you are not reading very well. I said I was "mildly offended". My faith is NOT challenged. However, using the symbols of that faith in an irreverent manner is offensive.

You will note that I did say that she is a beautiful woman in the OP.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
That's not what he said at all. It would be so nice to have a discussion about something religious in content without some atheist nut turning it into a full on bitchfest by being a full on dickhead within the first page. Just once.
Click to expand...

Especially considering that i am not one to push my faith, just one who defends it against dis-information on here. I try to be reasonable about such things.
 
ludahai said:
Again, you are not ready very well. I said I was "mildly offended". My faith is NOT challenged. However, using the symbols of that faith in an irreverent manner is offensive.

You will note that I did say that she is a beautiful woman in the OP.
Click to expand...

To Muslims using Mohmmed in a cartoon was offensive. Christians and Americans said to those Muslims get over it. I now tell you the same thing I have told Muslims....get over it.

Just because something is offensive doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.
 
TheNextEra said:
To Muslims using Mohmmed in a cartoon was offensive. Christians and Americans said to those Muslims get over it. I now tell you the same thing I have told Muslims....get over it.

Just because something is offensive doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.
Click to expand...

But Catholics aren't going to bomb a Playboy office because of it.
 
TheNextEra said:
To Muslims using Mohmmed in a cartoon was offensive. Christians and Americans said to those Muslims get over it. I now tell you the same thing I have told Muslims....get over it.

Just because something is offensive doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.
Click to expand...

No, we said to Muslims, "Don't send death threats to the cartoonist and burn down half of the Netherlands on your rampage".
 
jallman said:
No, we said to Muslims, "Don't send death threats to the cartoonist and burn down half of the Netherlands on your rampage".
Click to expand...

Good then you can get over it right? Turn the other cheek.
 
TheNextEra said:
Good then get over it.
Click to expand...

So, we shouldn't point out when there is something that we believe is blasphemous or offensive? We should just shut up then? There is so much we talk about on here that we sould just get over, but instead we hop on DP and debate it, discuss it, even fight over it. Why is this any different?
 
If you Christians can insult Muslims getting upset over a cartoon I can insult you Christians getting upset over this. It is petty. Get over it and deal with it, quit being whiny babies. BTW I say the same thing to Muslims upset over the cartoons.

If you don't like the Playboy magazine over it, don't buy it, even though I know many Christian males still buy it.
 
jallman said:
That's not what he said at all. It would be so nice to have a discussion about something religious in content without some atheist nut turning it into a full on bitchfest by being a full on dickhead within the first page. Just once.
Click to expand...

Very mature response. Glad to see your rose above the "atheist nut" and chose to be the bigger person.
 
ludahai said:
Speak for yourself. Catholics refer to her as the Eternal Virgin. Jesus did NOT have any brothers (or half-brothers).



That one was pretty bad, and far more offensive. Note, in the OP, I said I was "mildly offended" by this picture.
Click to expand...

The bible even refers to Jesus's brother as James. Later to be known as James the Just, first Bishop of Jerusalem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom