NationStates Jolt Archive

A local paper reported that Playboy USA said sorry for the Maria cover on the Playboy Mexico cover.

Why? Since when is showing people with clothes on forbidden???

And then they wonder at Playboy why the finances are dropping back…

However, christians seems to be nice people. Imagine if Playboy would have used some holy Fatima… Worldwide riots would be the result.

http://vivirlatino.com/2008/12/17/la-virgen-de-la-gran-puta-thoughts-on-mexican-playboys-maria.php

I imagine they'd be annoyed that the mother of their Messiah was being portrayed as a porn star.

I'm an agnostic, and that cover still somewhat annoys me.

It's hard to put my fingers on what it is exactly, but there's something wrong about that stuff. It's not even about the respect of religion, I believe nothing and no one should be protected against mockery (and support repeal of libel laws). And I even laughed out loud at the outrageous South Park's Bloody Mary episode, and see nothing much wrong with it. And I myself have on occasions mocked the specific biblical story.

Perhaps the issue is that this is less mocking and more serious. Whatever, I can't phrase it exactly, but this is pretty deeply insulting to the Christians' beliefs, not just mocking.

Meow! Check out that side boob! Nay! Inner side boob! ;)

On a more serious note, the cover's not all that questionable nor objectionable. Of course, there will always be those who will find fault in anything. Those are the same who could take something that's pretty tame and make it seem overly sexual. For Playboy, that's a tame cover.

thats pretty freaking tacky.

It's just a nice picture of a nice woman. Nothing naked involved and if it was I wouldn't care either.

I can't speak Spanish, but I assume there's written 'we love you Maria', no?

The woman is portrayed in a style close to the Maria we know from churches, paintings, etc...

But if Maria ever existed, I doubt she was looking like her.
If it was, you could say that god didn't pick an ugly chick.

I like it when ‘the world’ is crying loud for a picture or a cartoon. That reminds me that at least those people do not have serious problems.

Meow! Check out that side boob! Nay! Inner side boob! ;)

I, for one, am posting one handed.

I suspect that if given a chance, Baby Jesus would probably suck on those breasts. Surely the Baby Jesus couldn't be wrong, could he?

I suspect that if given a chance, Baby Jesus would probably suck on those breasts. Surely the Baby Jesus couldn't be wrong, could he?

I wouldn't be so sure, the gospel of St. Paul suggests JC was an ass man.

I can understand why some people would be offended.

In Christian beliefs Mother Mary is a very high-regarded woman. Would you want some girl, with or without her clothes on, making a sexual display of your mother?

Mary, although NOT a god, is very revered and honored in Christian belief as being the mother of God. And the very thing playboy does is strictly against the commandments of Christianity.

Now, I'm not usually a big fan of the Church in general, but it just makes a lot of sense to me why Christians are upset. Especially in such a traditionally Catholic country.

Meow! Check out that side boob!
[...]
For Playboy, that's a tame cover.
That's exactly the issue. South Park's "Bloody Mary" couldn't be taken seriously. This cover is tame enough to be taken seriously.

That's exactly the issue. South Park's "Bloody Mary" couldn't be taken seriously. This cover is tame enough to be taken seriously.

Shouldn't the fact that it's tame on a fucking porno mag mean that it shouldn't be taken seriously?

I wouldn't be so sure, the gospel of St. Paul suggests JC was an ass man.

Perhaps when He grew up, but when He was a baby, He was all about the tits. *nod*

Shouldn't the fact that it's tame on a fucking porno mag mean that it shouldn't be taken seriously?

Is Playboy porn? I consider it as a softsex magazine.

There are no pictures of blowjobs, cunnilingus or penetrations inside.
No weird pictures with over 80 years ladies, nothing with animals, children or whatever.

Playboy is not porn.

Softcore porn is still porn.

Perhaps when He grew up, but when He was a baby, He was all about the tits. *nod*
*consults with Biblical Tittie Scholars*
Is Playboy porn? I consider it as a softsex magazine.

There are no pictures of blowjobs, cunnilingus or penetrations inside.
No weird pictures with over 80 years ladies, nothing with animals, children or whatever.

Playboy is not porn.

por⋅nog⋅ra⋅phy
   /pɔrˈnɒgrəfi/ [pawr-nog-ruh-fee]
–noun
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pornography

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Playboy is porn.

Is Playboy porn? I consider it as a softsex magazine.

There are no pictures of blowjobs, cunnilingus or penetrations inside.
No weird pictures with over 80 years ladies, nothing with animals, children or whatever.

Playboy is not porn.
yes its porn.

its pretty porn but that doesnt change its basic nature.

*consults with Biblical Tittie Scholars*



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pornography

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Playboy is porn.

For me, Playboy pictures are not obscene. Most of them are not art either (but some fit in that category).

I feel that porn labeling is something personal. Maybe due the culture?

I heard once that Americans are rather offended fast by nudity. Well, in this country, it's not.

For me, Playboy pictures are not obscene. Most of them are not art either (but some fit in that category).

I feel that porn labeling is something personal. Maybe due the culture?

I heard once that Americans are rather offended fast by nudity. Well, in this country, it's not.

Oh it's certainly very soft porn. But it's still porn. When a 12 year old can stroll into a shop and buy a Playboy, then they'll have watered it down so much that it isn't porn any more.

Shouldn't the fact that it's tame on a fucking porno mag mean that it shouldn't be taken seriously?
Playboy positions itself as "erotica, not porn".

It's the tamest of all mags of its kind, and isn't considered a porn mag by those who have seen it. There's a solid taboo against anything hardcore in there.
Most pics in Playboy are not any more pornlike than ads you can find in regular vanity, fashion, or even car tabloids.

While I don't personally have a problem with that cover (beautiful! ^^), I can understand why people were turned off by it. There's something bordering on genuine in that image that clashes rather horribly with its Playboy frame, giving reason to wonder if it was intended to be respectful or mocking.

Meh. Artistic, though! :D

Let's suppose it was Popular Mechanics. I personally think you should stay away from Religious Icons of any faith. When you do something like this you deliberately trying to get a rise out of a certain segment of the population. Of course the church will come out and ban it making it more popular. Driving the subscription up. It kind of like a shock jock approach. Say something make them mad and they will keep coming back.

I think this one may backfire on them as this crosses over in the taboo section. You have just alienated just about all the catholic readers that you may have. Although arguably you should probably not be reading this anyway if you are catholic.

Let's suppose it was Popular Mechanics. I personally think you should stay away from Religious Icons of any faith. When you do something like this you deliberately trying to get a rise out of a certain segment of the population. Of course the church will come out and ban it making it more popular. Driving the subscription up. It kind of like a shock jock approach. Say something make them mad and they will keep coming back.
Why would Popular Mechanics have pictures of scantily clad women on the cover?

I dunno lets suppose she was dressed up like Jeff Gordon or one the other race car drivers. The point is she does really have anything to do with mechanics or porn.

I dunno lets suppose she was dressed up like Jeff Gordon or one the other race car drivers. The point is she does really have anything to do with mechanics or porn.

The model? She has everything to do with porn, she's a model in a porn magazine.

However, christians seems to be nice people. Imagine if Playboy would have used some holy Fatima… Worldwide riots would be the result.

Oh yes, because all Christians are perfectly nice people who never harmed anything, and doze ebil mozlems will instigate riots at the drop of a hat.

:rolleyes:


I think this one may backfire on them as this crosses over in the taboo section. You have just alienated just about all the catholic readers that you may have. Although arguably you should probably not be reading this anyway if you are catholic.

It just means that the Catholic School Boys will have to masturbate to Hustler instead.

The model? She has everything to do with porn, she's a model in a porn magazine.

It wouldn't have been a issue except the put that veil over her head. Nobody would have complained if it was just the model. She was presented intentionally to look like the Virgin Mary.

Why would Popular Mechanics have pictures of scantily clad women on the cover?
to boost sales?

the low rider magazines always have a scantily clad model on the cover.

It wouldn't have been a issue except the put that veil over her head. Nobody would have complained if it was just the model. She was presented intentionally to look like the Virgin Mary.

Which is going to wind up some Christians.

It wouldn't have been a issue except the put that veil over her head. Nobody would have complained if it was just the model. She was presented intentionally to look like the Virgin Mary.

Indeed. They say her name is coincidentally Maria.

Meow! Check out that side boob! Nay! Inner side boob! ;)

On a more serious note, the cover's not all that questionable nor objectionable. Of course, there will always be those who will find fault in anything. Those are the same who could take something that's pretty tame and make it seem overly sexual. For Playboy, that's a tame cover.

It isn't? This is the Mother of God, blessed above all women, according to Catholics. Seems to me that portraying her nude would be pretty deliberately offensive. Failing that, it means that the ones making that call to a Spanish-speaking audience were just plain not thinking.

In Christian beliefs Mother Mary is a very high-regarded woman. Would you want some girl, with or without her clothes on, making a sexual display of your mother?

Mary, although NOT a god, is very revered and honored in Christian belief as being the mother of God. And the very thing playboy does is strictly against the commandments of Christianity.

Now, I'm not usually a big fan of the Church in general, but it just makes a lot of sense to me why Christians are upset. Especially in such a traditionally Catholic country.

"High-regarded"? Try highest-regarded. Mother of God. Blessed is she and fruit of her womb, Jesus. The whole Catholic nine yards. And it's not all Christians who venerate her thus, just Catholics. And that veneration is very deep, given the history of Catholicism and the fact that Catholics pray to Mary, and not Jesus or God. You're on the right side of this issue, but you've understated it. Were I Catholic and raised in a typical hispanic Catholic tradition, I'd be beyond livid.

Oh yes, because all Christians are perfectly nice people who never harmed anything, and doze ebil mozlems will instigate riots at the drop of a hat.


:rolleyes:


Uh...they kinda do. Dutch cartoons ring a bell?

Someone says something reasonably critical about Islam, many Muslims riot or at least inflame the rhetoric against the speaker. When someone else points out that those Muslims overreacted, more Muslims get upset and become FAR more likely to react violently or with calls to violence than ANY Christian denomination.

It just means that the Catholic School Boys will have to masturbate to Hustler instead.

Like they need anything to look at to go there. Repression breeds sexual desire in most cases. It breeds Catholics as a result, though, so it's in the Church's best interest to remain repressive.

Who cares?

Seriously.

It just turns out that Mary is the ultimate MILF.

Who cares?

Seriously.

It just turns out that Mary is the ultimate MILF.

*fwap. fwap. fwap. fawp, fawp. fawp,fawp. fawp, fawp, fawp, fawp, fawp, fawp, fawp, fawp, fawp, fawp*

Who cares?

Seriously.

It just turns out that Mary is the ultimate MILF.

Umm Catholics?

Umm Catholics?

Catholics are born with crosses shoved up their asses, they're ALWAYS pissed.

Catholics are born with crosses shoved up their asses, they're ALWAYS pissed.

Not all of them, but y'know I was just telling you who cares, as you asked.

Catholics are born with crosses shoved up their asses, they're ALWAYS pissed.

Nice generalization there, Skippy. Also ridiculously wrong.

Nice generalization there, Skippy. Also ridiculously wrong.

Xomic is a kangaroo?

Nice generalization there, Skippy. Also ridiculously wrong.

Ah, but it's not a generalization to say ALL Muslims are intolerant and violent? How conveeeenient.

It isn't? This is the Mother of God, blessed above all women, according to Catholics. Seems to me that portraying her nude would be pretty deliberately offensive.

I take it you have never been in a Catholic church ? Depictions of Mary with her boobs (including nipples) actually showing are quite common on the pretty windows there. Especially when she is feeding baby Jesus. It is quite likely that this was done on purpose - to convince more men to come to church.

Aside from that - she is Gods woman. You know, God. THE man in charge. The head honcho. El Principal.
Of COURSE we are supposed to find her hot (but only looking, no touching). Anything else would be an insult to Him.

Ah, but it's not a generalization to say ALL Muslims are intolerant and violent? How conveeeenient.

Ummm but it is though.

To me it more like ICE water and electric shock. No where near sexy. They do the same thing with nuns, it has been done before, it isn't novel or new. We are repressed and guilty and whole bunch of other things.

They are likely to get letters a bunch of them.

Anyone who gets offended over what playboy does is a twat. Seriously. Find something real to get upset over.

For God's sake, what do people expect from Playboy? Character?

I imagine they'd be annoyed that the mother of their Messiah was being portrayed as a porn star.

The Renaissance painters routinely used their mistresses and prostitutes as models for Mary in their paintings. These paintings were usually commissioned by a Church official. I find no historical record that Church officials complained about the models. I also seem to recall, though I can't find the picture offhand, a painting of the Virgin Mary breastfeeding. So, here you have kept women and prostitutes and exposed breasts in Renaissance depictions of the Virgin (the baby Jesuses in these pictures were, incidentally, frequently the children of said mistresses and prostitutes). How is this different?

For God's sake, what do people expect from Playboy?
Journalistic integrity?

There are no pictures of blowjobs, cunnilingus or penetrations inside.
No weird pictures with over 80 years ladies, nothing with animals, children or whatever.

Playboy is not porn.

the issue of the lack of blowjobs, cunnulingus and penetration in the magazine is one thing.. i can't say that i would use the next three examples when making a case for what the 'standard contents of porn' are.

The Renaissance painters routinely used their mistresses and prostitutes as models for Mary in their paintings. How is this different?
Because hiring a prostitute as a cheap model is very different to portraying Mary as a sexual object.

It's not as if Renaissance painters were saying, "look Mary's a prostitute", they were merely using one to model.

Because hiring a prostitute as a cheap model is very different to portraying Mary as a sexual object.


As I said - the churches themselves have been doing that for 1000+ years. So whining about it when someone else does the same seems a bit silly; unless of course they think they hold the copyright or something like that.

All right people, I'm going to have to ask the lot of you to keep the generalisations to a minimum. We don't want to venture off into the Land of Trolls and Flames. I hear it's quite painful...

All right people, I'm going to have to ask the lot of you to keep the generalisations to a minimum. We don't want to venture off into the Land of Trolls and Flames. I hear it's quite painful...

So is the Land of Locked Threads. :p

It's just a nice picture of a nice woman. Nothing naked involved and if it was I wouldn't care either.

I can't speak Spanish, but I assume there's written 'we love you Maria', no?

The woman is portrayed in a style close to the Maria we know from churches, paintings, etc...

But if Maria ever existed, I doubt she was looking like her.
If it was, you could say that god didn't pick an ugly chick.

I like it when ‘the world’ is crying loud for a picture or a cartoon. That reminds me that at least those people do not have serious problems.
To the contrary, I think it indicates that they do. As someone on another site I go to put it, faith gives people lacking hope from a logical perspective hope from an illogical one. Combine that with the notion that faith is somehow a virtue and I suppose in that case it's no surprise it would be able to make people into brainwashed sheep.

But whatever, I guess I should be glad some Christians would be focusing their effort on this; that's less effort being focused on opposing ESCR. :D

Journalistic integrity?

Apperantly. Which makes them foolish. Thats like me being offended when they talk smack about atheists in church.

Uh...they kinda do. Dutch cartoons ring a bell?

Someone says something reasonably critical about Islam, many Muslims riot or at least inflame the rhetoric against the speaker.

Reasonable criticism now eh?

When someone else points out that those Muslims overreacted, more Muslims get upset

People don't point out "that those Muslims overreacted," they make grandiose statements about how Islam is a gutter religion and a Nazi ideology out to destroy freedom and democracy.

and become FAR more likely to react violently or with calls to violence than ANY Christian denomination.

Yeah let's just pretend no one in the good ole US was saying anything like "Nuke the middle east" or "turn the Middle East into a parking lot" or "Glass the ragheads" or any of the other lovely sentiments.

Christians don't need to "react violently" to these things. They can just vote in Bush to invade Iraq and kill half a million or so Iraqis. But of course! Half a million dead Iraqis is not really violence.

Because hiring a prostitute as a cheap model is very different to portraying Mary as a sexual object.

It's not as if Renaissance painters were saying, "look Mary's a prostitute", they were merely using one to model.

Spot on.

When the Mannerist painter Parmagianino produced his work Madonna with the Long Neck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_with_the_Long_Neck , he was criticized for, among other things, depicting Mary with a long neck, which was associated at the time with elegance and physical attractiveness. In other words, he was criticized for making the Mother of God an object for physical attraction.

The Playboy cover in question was deliberately produced to generate publicity by being offensive to Catholics in particular and Christians in general, from the pose to the costume to the background to the name of the model chosen (chosen!) for the depiction to the TIMING OF THE PUBLICATION at Christmastime, and no amount of after-the-fact excuses, justifications and/or apologies can obscure that fact. Badly done, Playboy.

And I say this as a former long-time subscriber and keyholder in the Playboy Club (as I've said many times before, I'm no fundamentalist ;) )

Spot on.

When the Mannerist painter Parmagianino produced his work Madonna with the Long Neck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_with_the_Long_Neck , he was criticized for, among other things, depicting Mary with a long neck, which was associated at the time with elegance and physical attractiveness. In other words, he was criticized for making the Mother of God an object for physical attraction.

The Playboy cover in question was deliberately produced to generate publicity by being offensive to Catholics in particular and Christians in general, from the pose to the costume to the background to the name of the model chosen (chosen!) for the depiction to the TIMING OF THE PUBLICATION at Christmastime, and no amount of after-the-fact excuses, justifications and/or apologies can obscure that fact. Badly done, Playboy.

And I say this as a former long-time subscriber and keyholder in the Playboy Club (as I've said many times before, I'm no fundamentalist ;) )

Pretty sensible.

And their web service is a bitch to cancel...

Xomic is a kangaroo?

Nope. Peanut butter.

Ah, but it's not a generalization to say ALL Muslims are intolerant and violent? How conveeeenient.

Oh for cryin' out loud. When did I say that? Unless you're unfamiliar with the definition of "many" and how it's not even remotely "all", you're blowing smoke.

Reasonable criticism now eh?

People don't point out "that those Muslims overreacted," they make grandiose statements about how Islam is a gutter religion and a Nazi ideology out to destroy freedom and democracy.

Right, but very few of those "people" jump up and down in the streets, self-flagellating and demanding the head of those who dared say anything negative.

Yeah let's just pretend no one in the good ole US was saying anything like "Nuke the middle east" or "turn the Middle East into a parking lot" or "Glass the ragheads" or any of the other lovely sentiments.

The difference being, of course, that nobody here actually makes plans to do it, and only the Administration decided to retaliate against an urelated entity.

Christians don't need to "react violently" to these things. They can just vote in Bush to invade Iraq and kill half a million or so Iraqis. But of course! Half a million dead Iraqis is not really violence.

So only Christians voted for Bush? Also, was he elected on the "invade Iraq" platform? Seems to me that if he told the electorate what he'd do after an attack like 9/11, and that what he said was that he'd do exactly what he's done in the last six years, do you think he'd have been elected at all in 2000? It wasn't like he had room to screw up in that election.

Playboy has become so mainstream this is their idea of how to shake things up? Bad idea. I am surprised they have not become the advertising arm for Victoria Secret by now.

Aerosmith did something similar on one of their album covers but they had the good sense to retract it.

Wiki quote below:

The original album art aroused the anger of some Hindus, who felt the artwork, taken from Hindu imagery and altered by giving the dancing figure a cat's head, was offensive. The image depicts Lord Krishna with a cat's head dancing on the head of the snake demon Aghasura, a popular episode from Sagmeister's childhood. The band had been unaware of the source of the artwork, and the record company apologized, and changed the artwork to the revised version seen above.

Strangely enough, some copies with original covers have found their way to music store shelves in India, where Hinduism is the majority religion, and have not raised any further controversy.

As I said - the churches themselves have been doing that for 1000+ years.
You said that?

I thought you merely came out with the rather lame theory that:
Depictions of Mary with her boobs (including nipples) actually showing are quite common on the pretty windows there. Especially when she is feeding baby Jesus. It is quite likely that this was done on purpose - to convince more men to come to church.
I can't tell if you're serious or not, but breastfeeding, or merely the sight of a boob or two doesn't equate to the Catholic Church sexualising Mary for over a Millenium.

Right, but very few of those "people" jump up and down in the streets, self-flagellating and demanding the head of those who dared say anything negative.


Oh. So it's not about causing violence, it's whether you jump up and down in the streets. That's the real crime.


The difference being, of course, that nobody here actually makes plans to do it,

Yeah maybe we have the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons for decorative purposes.

And the people who want to nuke the middle east, well, they don't really want that! They must not have been sincere?

So only Christians voted for Bush?

I didn't say that nor would I need to.

Also, was he elected on the "invade Iraq" platform?

It's called PNAC.

Seems to me that if he told the electorate what he'd do after an attack like 9/11, and that what he said was that he'd do exactly what he's done in the last six years, do you think he'd have been elected at all in 2000?

His constituents wanted a tough-on-terrorism, spread-democracy, do-right, God-fearin' man you could have a drink with. A good ole boy, a guy you could sit around and chat about nuking the middle east over a PBR. If he'd told everyone exactly what he'd do during his presidency no, he wouldn't have gotten elected. But then the same goes for so many politicians.

I don't recall seeing any art where she was breast feeding. The statues and paintings are always of very beautiful women, but beautiful in a different sense. More like serene, peaceful, gently, not sexy.

Oh. So it's not about causing violence, it's whether you jump up and down in the streets. That's the real crime.

Please tell me you're not that obtuse. I never said anything about a crime. It's about how you demonstrate your reaction to a perceived offense.

Yeah maybe we have the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons for decorative purposes.

Seriously? You're seriously claiming that the leftover cold-war trump card is somehow equal to strapping a bomb to oneself and shredding a crowd with it? And actually DOING that as opposed to using strategic weapons for detente?

And the people who want to nuke the middle east, well, they don't really want that! They must not have been sincere?

Obviously. :rolleyes:

Though I suppose you have a point with the cultural differences between the Muslim world and the US regarding bravado. They riot and self-flagellate, we toss off nuclear annihilation at the drop of a turban.

I didn't say that nor would I need to.

Perhaps not, but since you're busy misrepresenting me, I thought I'd return the favor.

It's called PNAC.

Right. The American electorate, had they known in advance what 2008 would look like as it is now, would still have elected Bush. Sorry, I know it's conjecture, but I'm not buying it.

His constituents wanted a tough-on-terrorism, spread-democracy, do-right, God-fearin' man you could have a drink with. A good ole boy, a guy you could sit around and chat about nuking the middle east over a PBR. If he'd told everyone exactly what he'd do during his presidency no, he wouldn't have gotten elected. But then the same goes for so many politicians.

So, in your own circuitous way, you're admitting you're wrong. Cool.

The cartoon deliberately provoked them. Why would you go about intentionally poking fun at a group of people. Just because you have freedom of the press does not mean you should use that freedom to malign others. I doubt Christians would have been delighted if it had happened to them likely no death threats would have been uttered.

I take it you have never been in a Catholic church ? Depictions of Mary with her boobs (including nipples) actually showing are quite common on the pretty windows there. Especially when she is feeding baby Jesus. It is quite likely that this was done on purpose - to convince more men to come to church.

"Quite likely"? Oh really? I would love to see the statistical calculations you made in support of that analysis.

Aside from that - she is Gods woman. You know, God. THE man in charge. The head honcho. El Principal.
Of COURSE we are supposed to find her hot (but only looking, no touching). Anything else would be an insult to Him.

No, we are NOT "supposed to find her hot". The truth is the exact opposite of your statement.

The cartoon deliberately provoked them. Why would you go about intentionally poking fun at a group of people. Just because you have freedom of the press does not mean you should use that freedom to malign others. I doubt Christians would have been delighted if it had happened to them likely no death threats would have been uttered.

Are you kidding?

Christianity and its various tenets and personalities have been the subject of parody and ridicule in the open for at least the last 30 years. South Park, Monty Python's Life of Brian, Piss Christ, the artist who sculpted the Virgin Mary in dung -- where have you been? Christians have protested or organized boycotts, but they've never demanded anyone's death (at least not publicly or on the record).

Why is it that one Abrahamic religion can take a joke, but the other can't? Also, how is it deliberate provocation if the image in question has at least some grounding in reality? The impetus should be on purging those who espouse the attitude that leads to the cartoon, not threatening the cartoonist for calling some of their more unreasonable Muslim bretheren on their bullshit.

Why would you defend such unbalanced extremism?

I don't recall seeing any art where she was breast feeding. The statues and paintings are always of very beautiful women, but beautiful in a different sense. More like serene, peaceful, gently, not sexy.

Try a google image search for Mary Jesus breastfeeding and you will see it was a very common subject

I can't tell if you're serious or not, but breastfeeding, or merely the sight of a boob or two doesn't equate to the Catholic Church sexualising Mary for over a Millenium.

For well over a millenium, pictures of Maria or reproductions of ancient roman works were the only type of pictures that were allowed to not wear many clothes without incurring the wrath of the Church. Hence the popularity.

And yes, this is serious.

Please tell me you're not that obtuse. I never said anything about a crime. It's about how you demonstrate your reaction to a perceived offense.


And you seem to be suggesting that reacting with violence is OK as long as you don't express yourself by jumping up and down.


Seriously? You're seriously claiming that the leftover cold-war trump card is somehow equal to strapping a bomb to oneself and shredding a crowd with it?

I'm saying "No one has plans to nuke" anyone is a silly statement given our military's (any military"s) tendency to plan, and the fact that we have the largest supply of nuclear weapons, and that we're the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons on a civilian population. The latter of which is indeed not 'equal' to suicide bombings, but far, far worse.


Though I suppose you have a point with the cultural differences between the Muslim world and the US regarding bravado. They riot and self-flagellate, we toss off nuclear annihilation at the drop of a turban.

Who needs nuclear annihilation when you can do it with economic embargos that starve children, with invasions and occupations that cost hundreds of thousands of lives? For that matter who needs "self flagellation" or "riots" when you can just sit back and watch Shock And Awe on TV?

So close... yet so conveniently distant. No blood on hands here. Muslims can safely be inferior and unethical.

Right. The American electorate, had they known in advance what 2008 would look like as it is now, would still have elected Bush. Sorry, I know it's conjecture, but I'm not buying it.

I didn't say they would. And I'm wondering why you're harping on that when it's irrelevant to my point.

So, in your own circuitous way, you're admitting you're wrong. Cool.

I'm not wrong about anything. You want to argue with fictional voices in your head who make fictional arguments, do it on your own time.

For well over a millenium, pictures of Maria or reproductions of ancient roman works were the only type of pictures that were allowed to not wear many clothes without incurring the wrath of the Church. Hence the popularity.

And yes, this is serious.

Um, Proof?

Aside from that - she is Gods woman. You know, God. THE man in charge. The head honcho. El Principal.
Of COURSE we are supposed to find her hot (but only looking, no touching). Anything else would be an insult to Him.

No Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or any other Christian Doctrine says so. Therefore this statement is wrong.

The cartoon deliberately provoked them. Why would you go about intentionally poking fun at a group of people. Just because you have freedom of the press does not mean you should use that freedom to malign others. I doubt Christians would have been delighted if it had happened to them likely no death threats would have been uttered.

You mean like if something like having the Virgin Mary on the cover of a dirty magazine happened? Point me to the death threats and mass rioting, please.

And you seem to be suggesting that reacting with violence is OK as long as you don't express yourself by jumping up and down.

I said "riot" -- that includes, one might assume, some jumping. You talk about what I harp on and yet you continue to childishly misrepresent me? Please.

I'm saying "No one has plans to nuke" anyone is a silly statement given our military's (any military"s) tendency to plan, and the fact that we have the largest supply of nuclear weapons, and that we're the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons on a civilian population. The latter of which is indeed not 'equal' to suicide bombings, but far, far worse.

And saying "pave it over" is vastly different from giving that person the button and telling them to go ahead and be directly responsible for multiple deaths.

Who needs nuclear annihilation when you can do it with economic embargos that starve children, with invasions and occupations that cost hundreds of thousands of lives? For that matter who needs "self flagellation" or "riots" when you can just sit back and watch Shock And Awe on TV?

Yes, because so many Americans wake up and think about how to starve children. No, that argument doesn't hold water.

So close... yet so conveniently distant. No blood on hands here. Muslims can safely be inferior and unethical.

Nice emotional appeal. Too bad it's utterly irrelevant.

I didn't say they would. And I'm wondering why you're harping on that when it's irrelevant to my point.

Because you brought it up and it's important to invalidate it because it's complete garbage.

I'm not wrong about anything. You want to argue with fictional voices in your head who make fictional arguments, do it on your own time.

And out comes the ad hominem. Thanks for the argument. I'm done with you.

Try a google image search for Mary Jesus breastfeeding and you will see it was a very common subject
Common, sure.

Sexual, no.



For well over a millenium, pictures of Maria or reproductions of ancient roman works were the only type of pictures that were allowed to not wear many clothes without incurring the wrath of the Church.
And how on Earth does this equate to sexualising Mary?

And yes, this is serious.
You think breastfeeding is sexy, and that the Catholic Church intentionally designed their churches to be sexually alluring? Would that be a Papal edict, or merely a secret conspiracy throught the ages to show boobage?

You mean like if something like having the Virgin Mary on the cover of a dirty magazine happened? Point me to the death threats and mass rioting, please.

Exactly.

For well over a millenium, pictures of Maria or reproductions of ancient roman works were the only type of pictures that were allowed to not wear many clothes without incurring the wrath of the Church. Hence the popularity.

And yes, this is serious.

Alma, the depictions of Romans and Greeks being naked, I understand. Any depictions of the Mary are, basically, from the Middle Ages and, I have only seen her clad.

It's not until the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance that one sees depictions of the Virgin baring her breasts. But even so, you do not see her completely naked.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/23/article-1028888-01B7392E00000578-245_468x602.jpg
Joovs van Cleve

Are you kidding?

Christianity and its various tenets and personalities have been the subject of parody and ridicule in the open for at least the last 30 years. South Park, Monty Python's Life of Brian, Piss Christ, the artist who sculpted the Virgin Mary in dung -- where have you been? Christians have protested or organized boycotts, but they've never demanded anyone's death (at least not publicly or on the record).

Why is it that one Abrahamic religion can take a joke, but the other can't? Also, how is it deliberate provocation if the image in question has at least some grounding in reality? The impetus should be on purging those who espouse the attitude that leads to the cartoon, not threatening the cartoonist for calling some of their more unreasonable Muslim bretheren on their bullshit.

Why would you defend such unbalanced extremism?



You made cartoon with the express purpose of poking fun at religion not known for it tolerance and you are shocked, horrified, and amazed when they react? My question is what did you expect to happen? Alright so these guys are intense to say the least.

I said "riot" -- that includes, one might assume, some jumping. You talk about what I harp on and yet you continue to childishly misrepresent me?

One might assume your complaint about "riots" has to do with the violence. Was I childishly misrepresenting you there?


And saying "pave it over" is vastly different from giving that person the button and telling them to go ahead and be directly responsible for multiple deaths.

Such people have the button, since they can and do vote. Years later half a million Iraqis are dead. But this violence is to be ignored so you can make some predictably obnoxious argument about how Muslims are inherently violent.

Yes, because so many Americans wake up and think about how to starve children. No, that argument doesn't hold water.

You just *love* burning down those strawmen.

Nice emotional appeal. Too bad it's utterly irrelevant.

No, your attempt to show the inferiority of Muslims is at the crux of this laughable chain of vomit you call an argument.

Because you brought it up

No, I never once argued that Bush campaigned on a "kill Iraqis" platform. This is yet another straw man of yours.

and it's important to invalidate it because it's complete garbage.

You have to burn strawmen so you look like you're actually arguing.

And out comes the ad hominem.

Pointing out that you make strawman fallacies is not an ad hominem argument.

Jesus fucking Chrirst.

Thanks for the argument. I'm done with you.

You're done, that's for sure. Let me know if you actually want to read and respond to what I say, and not what you wish I said.

You made cartoon with the express purpose of poking fun at religion not known for it tolerance and you are shocked, horrified, and amazed when they react? My question is what did you expect to happen? Alright so these guys are intense to say the least.

Agreed on that. It's like messing with a hive and complaining about the stings.

*snip*

You're funny! I like you!

But this violence is to be ignored so you can make some predictably obnoxious argument about how Muslims are inherently violent...

...your attempt to show the inferiority of Muslims is at the crux of this laughable chain of vomit you call an argument.
Intangelon said "many Muslims" riot/are violent when Islam is critiqued, which is hardly a portrayal of all Muslims as inherently violent or inferior.

Now, will everyone calm down and stop misusing the names of fallacies?

Agreed there will likely be no riots and no death threats. I hope for our sake, shouldn't be a least.

Intangelon said "many Muslims" riot/are violent when Islam is critiqued, which is hardly a portrayal of all Muslims as inherently violent or inferior.

Now, will everyone calm down and stop misusing the names of fallacies?

Thank you.

As a Christian, I am not that offended, as I don't roll with the Holy Mary crowd, BUT I do admit it is in poor taste.

Intangelon said "many Muslims" riot/are violent when Islam is critiqued, which is hardly a portrayal of all Muslims as inherently violent or inferior.


It is when made in the context of the "Catholics aren't looting and rioting even though their holy person was offended! SEE!" argument. It is left to mere implication why this is the case, but I've never seen anyone bring it up in this context without trying to make some judgmental comparison about Islam or Muslims in general - namely that the latter are somehow more violent, more temperamental, more zealous or whathaveyou.

Why else bring it up? Why else continually harp on it?

Why else dismiss the perfectly valid rebuttal that instead of rioting (violent and ostensibly wrong), Christians in the US cast their votes for people like GW Bush, who, when in office, commit acts of much greater violence and evil? No I'm supposed to ignore that, and just concentrate on the portrayal of Muslims as "jumping up and down in the street" in their oh so violent violent ways.

Now, will everyone calm down and stop misusing the names of fallacies?

I haven't misused the name of a single fallacy. Int did.

Why else dismiss the perfectly valid rebuttal that instead of rioting (violent and ostensibly wrong), Christians in the US cast their votes for people like GW Bush, who, when in office, commit acts of much greater violence and evil?


Intention is key here. One group when purposely doing acts of violent has that very intention to do so. The other group votes in guy, without the intention of him doing horrendous acts. Big difference.

Intention is key here. One group when purposely doing acts of violent has that very intention to do so. The other group votes in guy, without the intention of him doing horrendous acts. Big difference.

I for one knew Bush would do horrible things and I'm certain that many people not only knew he would, but supported (and still support) these things. Most people don't even see these things as horrible. The dead Iraqis from economic sanctions and war - who really in this country even recognizes this or lays fault on it? It's always "War is hell" and "You can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs" or "We didn't mean to do it." I don't buy that a country can wind up committing collective mass murder and get away with "we didn't mean to do it."

And I *certainly* don't see that that's comparable with a few riots. By body count alone, the US has committed the far greater evils. And Bush would not have gotten elected had he not made his appeals to the Christian fundie right. Whether he's a 'believer' or not, whether they wound up being pleased with him or not, you can't deny that Christianity had a role in getting Bush elected.

I for one knew Bush would do horrible things and I'm certain that many people not only knew he would, but supported (and still support) these things. Most people don't even see these things as horrible. The dead Iraqis from economic sanctions and war - who really in this country even recognizes this or lays fault on it? It's always "War is hell" and "You can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs" or "We didn't mean to do it." I don't buy that a country can wind up committing collective mass murder and get away with "we didn't mean to do it."

And I *certainly* don't see that that's comparable with a few riots. By body count alone, the US has committed the far greater evils. And Bush would not have gotten elected had he not made his appeals to the Christian fundie right. Whether he's a 'believer' or not, whether they wound up being pleased with him or not, you can't deny that Christianity had a role in getting Bush elected.


You saw that. Good for you! Some people are easily swayed by cunning arguments. Not everyone is as prophetic or intelligent as yourself.

Who has more blame? People who go out into the street and seek violence knowingly, or the ignorant people that vote for a man who abuses their trust and their vote of power?

You made cartoon with the express purpose of poking fun at religion not known for it tolerance


To whom, aside from Christians, is Christianity known for its "tolerance"?

To whom, aside from Christians, is Christianity known for its "tolerance"?

How about the hundreds of millions every year that are fed, clothed, and taken care of by Christians, Churches and Christian organizations? I assume they feel loved and tolerated.

To whom, aside from Christians, is Christianity known for its "tolerance"?

Actually, during the Middle Ages, the Muslim were far more tolerant with Christians, than Christians are nowadays with any other religion. In Spain, for example, they did not impose on the population the practice of Islam. The Spanish retained Catholicism.

I would like to see, in history, any place the Christians came to where they did not impose their creed upon the population.

Actually, during the Middle Ages, the Muslim were far more tolerant with Christians, than Christians are nowadays with any other religion. In Spain, for example, they did not impose on the population the practice of Islam. The Spanish retained Catholicism.


I am aware of this;)


I would like to see, in history, any place the Christians came to where they did not impose their creed upon the population.

When they didnt have the power to do so, ie pre-Christian Rome.

How about the hundreds of millions every year that are fed, clothed, and taken care of by Christians, Churches and Christian organizations? I assume they feel loved and tolerated.

1. I dont think you know what tolerance means.
2. That is done as a means to an end to make someone a Christian. Im willing to bet if they knew it wouldnt work, they wouldnt bother.
3. One does not need to be a Christian to care for the down trodden
4. This does not negate the millions who are tortured, bombed, and killed because they have a different imaginary friend.

I am aware of this;)

:wink:

When they didnt have the power to do so, ie pre-Christian Rome.

Yeah, until Christianity became the religion of Rome.

Yeah, until Christianity became the religion of Rome.

Hence the "pre-Christian" part:p

1. I dont think you know what tolerance means.
Point one of every argument you ever make: If you can't refute what they say, then you will make them look ignorant or inferior somehow.
Check.

I live tolerance out every day of my life. Hence why I am putting up with you. ;)

2. That is done as a means to an end to make someone a Christian. Im willing to bet if they knew it wouldnt work, they wouldnt bother. Point two: Make totally unsound accusations. Look what we have here! Point to me where it is commanded in the Gospel for Christians to be servants towards others for the sole purpose of making them a Christian. I'll be waiting for an eternity.


3. One does not need to be a Christian to care for the down trodden
Step 3: Assume that something was said when it wasn't. Check
I didn't say that non-Christians were incapable of serving others. I am simply tired of people like you who paint all Christians as self-seeking monsters, based on high profile idiots who put a nasty taste in the mouth of others. You never once praise the unnamed Christians who give their lives to help others. Why don't I see you giving accolades for Deidrich Bonhoffer who went back to Nazi Germany to help out those being persecuted, knowing very well that he would lose his life? Or how about those Christians that sheltered and rescued slaves from the South?


4. This does not negate the millions who are tortured, bombed, and killed because they have a different imaginary friend.
Final point to your arguments: Bring up a completely irrelevant point, as well as throwing in an insult. Its all there.

Again, show me where Jesus said that anyone who believes in a different god is to be tortured, or killed by a believer. He simply tells us to go and give attention to both their physical and spiritual needs.

I don't have an issue with it. Pornography magazines provide material that is sexually enjoyable. Costume play is a fettish. I can see how this costume is appealing, firstly because it's sexy and secondly because there's the notion of her being a *virgin*. It's not making a direct attack at any religion.

I don't have an issue with it. Pornography magazines provide material that is sexually enjoyable. Costume play is a fettish. I can see how this costume is appealing, firstly because it's sexy and secondly because there's the notion of her being a *virgin*. It's not making a direct attack at any religion.

Ugh, as if sex with a virgin was in any way something to be preferred. I gather some get off on it, but in practice, it is not nearly as great as it's advertised. I realize it's a necessity -- nobody gets full-contact experience without first being a virgin, of course, but still.

Actually, during the Middle Ages, the Muslim were far more tolerant with Christians, than Christians are nowadays with any other religion. In Spain, for example, they did not impose on the population the practice of Islam. The Spanish retained Catholicism.

I would like to see, in history, any place the Christians came to where they did not impose their creed upon the population.

The Norman Kingdom of Sicly was rather known for its tolerance of both Muslims and Jews. Also the Crusaders when they settled down treated their new subjects rather well, partly because they knew they were an minority as the local christians weren't catholic and of course the local jews muslims. There however was often troubles caused by newcomers from Europe. Of course Europeans overall were rather Xenophobic period during the middle ages.

I don't have an issue with it. Pornography magazines provide material that is sexually enjoyable. Costume play is a fettish. I can see how this costume is appealing, firstly because it's sexy and secondly because there's the notion of her being a *virgin*. It's not making a direct attack at any religion.

Still... it's the Mary, cosplay or not. And Mary is none other than the woman reputed with giving birth to an important and pivotal figure for millions of followers of one of the biggest religions on the planet. Pleasures and fanatsies aside, I wouldn't touch that type of fantasy with a 40 foot pole.

She is hot. As a avid hater of Christians I couldn't have cared less after seing those half boobs. Also its not offensive unless you take it as such and we all know how much the Christians love to toot their own horn.

It is when made in the context of the "Catholics aren't looting and rioting even though their holy person was offended! SEE!" argument.
Which is an observation of fact. Not a fact which has many implications, but a fact nonetheless.

I think you're boxing at shadows. Intangelon has stated that many Muslims rioted or caused violence when the Danish cartoons were published, and that it appears as if no Christian has rioted or caused violence due to the Playboy Mary. These are both factual observations.

They don't, obviously, mark as evidence for the inherent peacefulness/violence of either religion, and as far as I can see, Intangelon isn't suggesting this.

So, why not wait till someone posts something genuinely bigoted, instead of trying to squeeze a non-existant bigoted opinion out of a few disparate sentences?



1. I dont think you know what tolerance means.
Perhaps not, though the vast majority of the world's Christians seem to.

2. That is done as a means to an end to make someone a Christian. Im willing to bet if they knew it wouldnt work, they wouldnt bother.
This is simply false.

You can take Scotland as a wonderful example of Christian churches puting huge amounts of time, effort and resources into the wider community without evangelising or expecting recipients of charity to get involved in Christian worship. Drug outreach programs, homeless shelters, women's safe-houses, AIDS work, soup kitchens... the list goes on. If memory serves, the Church of Scotland (merely one of the many different Christian churches in Scotland, never mind other faiths) puts more than the State does into Scottish communities.

I highly doubt Scotland is unique.

You may not agree with their religious beliefs, but casting all Christians as bloodthirsty nuts, only interested in signing up souls for heaven, is simply dishonest misrepresentation.

3. One does not need to be a Christian to care for the down trodden
That point is not challenged.

4. This does not negate the millions who are tortured, bombed, and killed because they have a different imaginary friend.
Only if one assumes that, (a) all Christians, past and present, are of the same mind, the same denomination, the same political views, and that, (b) all Christians believe stuff like the Crusades was morally justifiable and sanctioned by their God.

Once again, don't fall into the trap that Dawkins and his ilk have: spiting vitriol at a large group of people based on the words and actions of a few.

Intention is key here. One group when purposely doing acts of violent has that very intention to do so. The other group votes in guy, without the intention of him doing horrendous acts. Big difference.

I personally think that ingnorance would be a more "horrendous" vice out of the two, but that is neither here or there.

Are you insinuating that all those people rioting after the Mohammed cartoon were collectively "doing acts of violent"? In my opinion the reaction from christians that we see now and the rioting mentioned before are actually quite similar. They may seem different at first glance, but that is mainly because of cultural reasons.

P.S. While you are talking about "groups" of people you have to admit that the size difference of these two groups is humongous. If you really want to make a meaningful comparison then compare the few muslim extrimists who actually did anything violent and the few Americans who intentionally voted for a guy who would commit horrendous violent acts.

She is hot. As a avid hater of Christians I couldn't have cared less after seing those half boobs. Also its not offensive unless you take it as such and we all know how much the Christians love to toot their own horn.

Warned. Refrain from trolling. Even if you don't like Christians, there are other ways of expressing yourself.

A local paper reported that Playboy USA said sorry for the Maria cover on the Playboy Mexico cover.

Why? Since when is showing people with clothes on forbidden???

And then they wonder at Playboy why the finances are dropping back…

However, christians seems to be nice people. Imagine if Playboy would have used some holy Fatima… Worldwide riots would be the result.

http://vivirlatino.com/2008/12/17/la-virgen-de-la-gran-puta-thoughts-on-mexican-playboys-maria.php

simple marketing.
Many Mexicans are deeply catholic and can get offended on the matter so an apology is needed to ensure people continue to buy the magazine.
More over by doing it and apologizing they draw attention to the cover and make it a forbidden fruit raising sales.

I can feel no more offended by a depiction of a partially clothed Virgin Mary than I can by any picture of a partially or completely unclothed woman that's done with the intention of objectifying her. Why should someone's religious sensibilities be considered to be more important than the sensibilities of any person who wants to be regarded as a whole person and not solely as a sexual thing?

(please excuse the mild feminist rant, I just see no reason to make religion more important than people. People keep forgetting - religion exists because of people not the other way around).

This is simply false.

You can take Scotland as a wonderful example of Christian churches puting huge amounts of time, effort and resources into the wider community without evangelising or expecting recipients of charity to get involved in Christian worship. Drug outreach programs, homeless shelters, women's safe-houses, AIDS work, soup kitchens... the list goes on. If memory serves, the Church of Scotland (merely one of the many different Christian churches in Scotland, never mind other faiths) puts more than the State does into Scottish communities.

I highly doubt Scotland is unique.

You may not agree with their religious beliefs, but casting all Christians as bloodthirsty nuts, only interested in signing up souls for heaven, is simply dishonest misrepresentation.

I disagree that it is false. You know why its probably like that n Scotland? Because the vast majority of the Scots are most likely Christian already, so they dont have to evangelize. However, you look at places like Africa, where all the aid and resources devouted to it is tied up in people who are actually willing to convert, and has all these theological strings attached.

Someone brought up in the Missionary thread stories of Missionaries who would withold aid to a village unless they converted, or would abandon aiding one village who wouldnt convert in favor of moving on to one who might.

This is, however, irrelevent. I merely challanged the notion that Christianity is this magic religion of tolerance (I believe it was said it was "The most tolerant religion") and that Christians are all these tolerant people who mind their own business and are being unfairly targeted for offense by the sinful, evil Playboy Magazine. Not that I wish to defend Playboy either. Hue Hefner is a fuck. Which brings me full circle. Why did someone expect any better from Playboy, and why are people wasting their time being offended by it? Its like me still being offended over George "Atheists arent American Citizens" Bush 41, or George "Witchcraft is not a religion" Bush 43's comments about religion.

I can feel no more offended by a depiction of a partially clothed Virgin Mary than I can by any picture of a partially or completely unclothed woman that's done with the intention of objectifying her. Why should someone's religious sensibilities be considered to be more important than the sensibilities of any person who wants to be regarded as a whole person and not solely as a sexual thing?

(please excuse the mild feminist rant, I just see no reason to make religion more important than people. People keep forgetting - religion exists because of people not the other way around).

Because you women belong in the Kitchen. *nods*

Because you women belong in the Kitchen. *nods*

Partially or completely unclothed?

Partially or completely unclothed?

Depends on how good looking you are. You are merely objects of sex and food making you know.

I disagree that it is false. You know why its probably like that n Scotland? Because the vast majority of the Scots are most likely Christian already, so they dont have to evangelize.
The vast majority of Scots don't go to church, they aren't active Christians. I imagne this is especially the case with the homeless, drug abusers, etc.

However, you look at places like Africa, where all the aid and resources devouted to it is tied up in people who are actually willing to convert, and has all these theological strings attached.
Has it though?

Think of an organisation such as Christian Aid (http://www.christianaid.org.uk/), a massive, non-evangelical charity organisation. Modern Christianity draws a clear line between mission and aid.

Someone brought up in the Missionary thread stories of Missionaries who would withold aid to a village unless they converted, or would abandon aiding one village who wouldnt convert in favor of moving on to one who might.
Those are (bad) missionaries, not Christian charity workers. The very job of a missionary is to evangelise, so you're picking on the wrong target. Anyhoo, I'd like to see some evidence of that the majority of Christian missionaries act in such a terrible manner.

This is, however, irrelevent. I merely challanged the notion that Christianity is this magic religion of tolerance
You said (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14313536&postcount=90) that, "To whom, aside from Christians, is Christianity known for its "tolerance"?".

Answer: million upon millions of people.

I believe it was said it was "The most tolerant religion"
Not in this thread, AFAIK.

Still... it's the Mary, cosplay or not. And Mary is none other than the woman reputed with giving birth to an important and pivotal figure for millions of followers of one of the biggest religions on the planet. Pleasures and fanatsies aside, I wouldn't touch that type of fantasy with a 40 foot pole.

But if we (oh, and there are many of us) don't believe the religion or the "immaculate" conception, then that "pivotal" figure doesn't really matter to us.

Just because you choose to worship a carpenter's son who died 2000 years ago, doesn't mean people can't wear or fantasise about a particular outfit.

It doesnt even look like hte virgin mary it looks like a model with a bed sheet over her head.

Answer: million upon millions of people.


Millions and millions of people who identify themselves as Christians. Thus, my statement is as of yet unanswered. To who, aside from Christians, is Christianity considered this great religion of tolerance?


In all honosty Chumbly, I already feel bad that Ive thread-jacked this much. I would be more than happy to discuss this in a seperate thread if you care enough to make one (I would, but I have to bolt), but because this discussion is irrelevent to the thread (and yes, I know I started it), thats all I will say on the matter in this thread.

It doesnt even look like hte virgin mary it looks like a model with a bed sheet over her head.

That's very true.

It doesnt even look like hte virgin mary it looks like a hot model with a bed sheet over her head and showing side-boob.

Fixed;)

Millions and millions of people who identify themselves as Christians.
Simply wrong.

Aside from the millions upon millions of non-Christian who receive aid throughout the world, the millions upon millions of people who life a non-Christian life and are tolerated by the vast majority of Christians.

I'm one of the many.

Thus, my statement is as of yet unanswered. To who, aside from Christians, is Christianity considered this great religion of tolerance?
As that phrase was never said in this thread, you're free to answer your own question.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Catholics pray to Mary and not Jesus or God?

MARIANISTS, perhaps. Not all Catholics venerate Mary to the exclusion of all else -- as a matter of fact, you could argue they pretty much are not Christians at that point.

I would like to see, in history, any place the Christians came to where they did not impose their creed upon the population.
Japan.

Japan.
Buddhists fucked 'em up.

Buddhists fucked 'em up.
Naw, annoyed samurai lords who thought that a revolt in a heavily Christian domain was the fault of Spanish priests working at the command of the Pope did that. :wink:

Then the Japanese got creative with how to deal with anyone who wouldn't renounce their faith and the Christians either did so, died, or got even MORE creative with hiding themselves.

Naw, annoyed samurai lords who thought that a revolt in a heavily Christian domain was the fault of Spanish priests working at the command of the Pope did that. :wink:
I knew I should have read more than the blurb...

...and the Christians either did so, died, or got even MORE creative with hiding themselves.
The 'Buddhist' statues of Mary or Jesus are amazing.

Damn sneaky, some of 'em.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Catholics pray to Mary and not Jesus or God?

MARIANISTS, perhaps. Not all Catholics venerate Mary to the exclusion of all else -- as a matter of fact, you could argue they pretty much are not Christians at that point.

It's my understanding that Catholics approach(ed) Mary, and the various Saints, as intercessors. As if, somehow, having a Saint present the argument to God would give them more clout. Kind of like a Heavenly attorney.

It's my understanding that Catholics approach(ed) Mary, and the various Saints, as intercessors. As if, somehow, having a Saint present the argument to God would give them more clout. Kind of like a Heavenly attorney.
Well, in Mary's case it's a bit more than that. I mean, do you know of a better way to get a guy to do something that to ask his mom to bug him about it? :D

I wouldn't be so sure, the gospel of St. Paul suggests JC was an ass man.

do you have to work at being clever? :D

Well, in Mary's case it's a bit more than that. I mean, do you know of a better way to get a guy to do something that to ask his mom to bug him about it? :D

Never worked with my son.

Never worked with my son.
Obviously you just never bugged him enough.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Catholics pray to Mary and not Jesus or God?

MARIANISTS, perhaps. Not all Catholics venerate Mary to the exclusion of all else -- as a matter of fact, you could argue they pretty much are not Christians at that point.

Ave who? Maria. Who noster? Pater.

No Ave Jesus or Filius noster.

Of course, the number of variations and sects under the Christian umbrella is pretty big. My mistake was implying prayers to Mary to the exclusion of others. I forgot Pater noster and praying to the saints.

Chumbly, thanks for defending my argument better than I did. I was too frustrated to say what you said so well. You have my gratitude.

I must say I find it amusing, but the fact that Mary's supposed to be a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth (or so the story goes anyway) makes her a bit less enticing, personally.

It doesnt even look like hte virgin mary it looks like a model with a bed sheet over her head.

Which begs the question, what did she look like?

Which begs the question, what did she look like?

Like your average 9-14 year old arab-jewish girl ?
The age is of course guesswork, but if one takes the word "virgin" literally and considering marriages are supposed to be consummated if the woman is fertile (not doing so can be considered a sin - and Mary is supposed to be free of sin), taking into account the fact that girls married young in that age -it is likely her first egg was fertilised.

Unless of course one does not take virgin literally. Or does not believe God impregnated her in the first place and so on.

Like your average 9-14 year old arab-jewish girl ?
The age is of course guesswork, but if one takes the word "virgin" literally and considering marriages are supposed to be consummated if the woman is fertile (not doing so can be considered a sin - and Mary is supposed to be free of sin), taking into account the fact that girls married young in that age -it is likely her first egg was fertilised.

Unless of course one does not take virgin literally. Or does not believe God impregnated her in the first place and so on.

The whole Mary as virgin idea is simply a mistranslation

The whole Mary as virgin idea is simply a mistranslation

Quite possibly. Then again, a significant amount of Christians, probably even a majority, believes it.

And of course, girls indeed did marry that young in Roman times. Man 30, woman 12 was not an exception - so virginity is quite possible if Josef did not wish to have sex with her before her first period had passed.

Quite possibly. Then again, a significant amount of Christians, probably even a majority, believes it.

And of course, girls indeed did marry that young in Roman times. Man 30, woman 12 was not an exception - so virginity is quite possible if Josef did not wish to have sex with her before her first period had passed.

Though possibly he had an older brother.

Though possibly he had an older brother.

Craig "cannot walk on H2O, but have hydroponic shit that me and Judas grow" Christ ?

Craig "cannot walk on H2O, but have hydroponic shit that me and Judas grow" Christ ?

James the Just

Japan.

Ah, true. Since the Portuguese missionaries got there in the what, 18th. century (sorry if this is a mistake)?, Christians are tolerated in Japan. I forgot that. :p

Like your average 9-14 year old arab-jewish girl ?
The age is of course guesswork, but if one takes the word "virgin" literally and considering marriages are supposed to be consummated if the woman is fertile (not doing so can be considered a sin - and Mary is supposed to be free of sin), taking into account the fact that girls married young in that age -it is likely her first egg was fertilised.

Unless of course one does not take virgin literally. Or does not believe God impregnated her in the first place and so on.

9-14 so Playboy was engaging in some child porm here?

For God's sake, what do people expect from Playboy? Character?

Good articles?

Though possibly he had an older brother.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jruLuoTZ_2I

If you haven't heard of me
I wouldn't be surprised
I bet you know my relatives
Their names will never die
My mother is a saint
And my brother is a god
But all I am is Jesus' brother Bob

Jesus' brother Bob, Jesus' brother Bob
A nobody relative of the son of God
If only I'd been born just a little sooner
I'd be more than the brother of God Junior

I have to pay the ferry
To cross the Galilee
But not my brother
No not him
He walks across for free
I finally get to work
'Bout a quarter after nine
Already he's turning water into wine

Jesus' brother Bob, Jesus' brother Bob
A nobody relative of the son of God
If only I'd been born just a little sooner
I'd be more than the brother of God Junior

One day when I was home
I heard a mighty roar (HOWLER!)
There were a thousand people
Right outside the door
Help us, Jesus, help us!
Came the cheering from the mob
But then they got a look at me
"Oh nuts! it's only Bob"

Jesus' brother Bob, Jesus' brother Bob
A nobody relative of the son of God
If only I'd been born just a little sooner
I'd be more than the brother of God Junior

He died upon the cross
I thought that I was free
Finally people would get to know
Me for me
(Hi Bob, Hi Judas!)
This was my big chance
To finally get ahead
The next thing you know
He's rising from the dead

Jesus' brother Bob, Jesus' brother Bob
A nobody relative of the son of God
If only I'd been born just a little sooner
I'd be more than the brother of God Junior

Everybody!

Jesus' brother Bob, Jesus' brother Bob
A nobody relative of the son of God
If only I'd been born just a little sooner
I'd be more than the brother of God Junior

ahhhh-Bob

Ah, true. Since the Portuguese missionaries got there in the what, 18th. century (sorry if this is a mistake)?, Christians are tolerated in Japan. I forgot that. :p

Japan Christians marking martyrs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7745307.stm)
Japan looks back on 17th-Century persecutions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7745455.stm)

*cough*

Maybe they are now, as they are only 1%...

Oh and the missionaries, aka, Jesuits, were there in the 17th century and they faced persecution at the hands of the ruling shoguns. In fact, in the early part of the 17th century, an attempt to complete eradicate it was made. Christianity had been introduced by Francis Xavier in 1549, though it had been initially banned by the feudal lords.

Japan Christians marking martyrs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7745307.stm)
Japan looks back on 17th-Century persecutions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7745455.stm)

*cough*

Maybe they are now, as they are only 1%...

Oh and the missionaries, aka, Jesuits, were there in the 17th century and they faced persecution at the hands of the ruling shoguns. In fact, in the early part of the 17th century, an attempt to complete eradicate it was made. Christianity had been introduced by Francis Xavier in 1549, though it had been initially banned by the feudal lords.

Well, I don't always remember all my history.:p

I can understand why Christians would be offended by this...

I'm sure if Playgirl had a guy dressed like Muhammad or Joseph Smith Jr. there'd be a religious outcry from Muslims or Mormons, respectively. In fact if any religious figure was portrayed on the cover of a Porno mag I'm sure somebody would be offended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jruLuoTZ_2I
*snip*

Excellent

Excellent

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pPdFrW076R0 :p

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pPdFrW076R0 :p

Ah :D

Japan Christians marking martyrs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7745307.stm)
Japan looks back on 17th-Century persecutions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7745455.stm)

*cough*

Maybe they are now, as they are only 1%...

Oh and the missionaries, aka, Jesuits, were there in the 17th century and they faced persecution at the hands of the ruling shoguns. In fact, in the early part of the 17th century, an attempt to complete eradicate it was made. Christianity had been introduced by Francis Xavier in 1549, though it had been initially banned by the feudal lords.

Well, they were basically invading a place that had its own religion and didn't need any Jesuit interference. Why is it that one religion bent on world conquest is in any way better than any other? The shoguns didn't want their power challenged, so they burned those who tried...who were also culturally way different than everyone else there and trying to impose their culture on one that was already as well established as those who came. If you're trying to use the Japanese refusal of Jesuit missionaries as proof of Japanese intolerance of Christians, it's a weak argument.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pPdFrW076R0 :p

Uh...too far.

Methinks the catholics need to grow some skin.

Methinks the catholics need to grow some skin.

Why? It's obvious Playboy hoped to get this reaction. It was their intention. I don't think anyone should be complaining over uproar Playboy was intentionally trying to create.

Why? It's obvious Playboy hoped to get this reaction. It was their intention. I don't think anyone should be complaining over uproar Playboy was intentionally trying to create.

Unless you can prove that that was Playboy's intention stfu.

Unless you can prove that that was Playboy's intention stfu.
oh because there is some OTHER reason to make porn pics of the mother of god? some kind of porn imperative to cover every possible fetish out there and this is the only one they had missed and it just happened to be their december issue?

Well, they were basically invading a place that had its own religion and didn't need any Jesuit interference. Why is it that one religion bent on world conquest is in any way better than any other? The shoguns didn't want their power challenged, so they burned those who tried...who were also culturally way different than everyone else there and trying to impose their culture on one that was already as well established as those who came. If you're trying to use the Japanese refusal of Jesuit missionaries as proof of Japanese intolerance of Christians, it's a weak argument.



Uh...too far.


Point of fact, previous Shoguns didn't have problems with christians in fact they had used christian Samurai to combat and destroy the Warrior Monks of Japan who were an threat to their power. The problem came when European countries started annexing places in Asia. The Shogun of the time was parranoid about the that local christians might be plotting some consperacy to insure European domination so they started perscuting the christians who then revolted.

the Jesuits were also in china, where while they didn't make many converts were repected for knowelege if thought rather strange.

oh because there is some OTHER reason to make porn pics of the mother of god? some kind of porn imperative to cover every possible fetish out there and this is the only one they had missed and it just happened to be their december issue?

Nudity is porn?

Do you consider this porn?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/23/article-1028888-01B7392E00000578-245_468x602.jpg

Nudity is porn?

Do you consider this porn?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/23/article-1028888-01B7392E00000578-245_468x602.jpg
you really cant tell the difference between nudity in classic art and nudity in playboy?

you really dont see a difference between a painting depicting the holy mother in her role as the natural mother of jesus--meaning that she would indeed breastfeed him--and a photo shot for men to jerk off to?

what? you think that playboy is serving some kind of religious purpose now?

Man...i wish We could get that kinda action from our icons up here.....;)

you really cant tell the difference between nudity in classic art and nudity in playboy?


What is art to one person can be trash to another. Whose opinion is more valid?

Even in comparison, Playboy doesn't show nipple.

you really dont see a difference between a painting depicting the holy mother in her role as the natural mother of jesus--meaning that she would indeed breastfeed him--and a photo shot for men to jerk off to?


So no man looked at the breast and didn't think "Hey now!" You will find men will jerk off to just about anything. How do you know there haven't been men that haven't jerked off to the thoughts of the painting? Breasts were far more taboo in the paintings day.

I looked at the cover thought she was pretty.

what? you think that playboy is serving some kind of religious purpose now?

Sure. The cult of loving naked women! A couple billion members I am told.

What is art to one person can be trash to another. Whose opinion is more valid?

Even in comparison, Playboy doesn't show nipple.



So no man looked at the breast and didn't think "Hey now!" You will find men will jerk off to just about anything. How do you know there haven't been men that haven't jerked off to the thoughts of the painting? Breasts were far more taboo in the paintings day.

I looked at the cover thought she was pretty.



Sure. The cult of loving naked women! A couple billion members I am told.
you have strayed from your point.

you really dont see a difference between a painting depicting the holy mother in her role as the natural mother of jesus--meaning that she would indeed breastfeed him--and a photo shot for men to jerk off to?

Ooooh - I can !
There is far more skin showing on the nippled one ;) As well as it being vastly more sexy.

Ooooh - I can !
There is far more skin showing on the nippled one ;) As well as it being vastly more sexy.
if you buy the playboy issue you will find more sexy pics inside complete with nipplage (i assume)

if you buy the playboy issue you will find more sexy pics inside complete with nipplage (i assume)

Not really...Playboy doesnt really show much, they just suggest it...that pic's pretty much it....I cant remember ever seeing nipple in Playboy....:wink:

if you buy the playboy issue you will find more sexy pics inside complete with nipplage (i assume)

Possibly - but the "I bought it for the articles" excuse is not believed by anyone.
A church sanctioned picture of Mary otoh - well, who would object ?

As a Catholic, I am offended by that depiction of the Virgin Mary.

However, being that Playboy has the right to free speech, I am going to not really care. Ignoring offensive material is the best way to squash it.

you have strayed from your point.

Not really.

What is art is a matter of opinion.

You find it repulsive. I don't.

Unless you can prove that that was Playboy's intention stfu.
Really? You think that Playboy didn't know what would happen if they put a mostly naked madonna on their cover? Give me a fucking break. They didn't get this big in the game by being idiots.

you really cant tell the difference between nudity in classic art and nudity in playboy?
I don't know. The entirety of deviantART can't differentiate between artistic nudes and softcore porn. Maybe he frequents there.

I don't know. The entirety of deviantART can't differentiate between artistic nudes and softcore porn. Maybe he frequents there.

:)

Actually I haven't. But being a rather curious person; you now made me have to go look.

My mother was liberated for a lack of a better description. She taught me nudity was not an ugly thing as her Religious minded parents taught her.

I can look at that cover and appreciate the beauty of the woman.

I don't force people to look at it and people shouldn't force me not to look it.

As a Liberal Roman Catholic, I know firsthand how highly Maria is venerated in the Catholic faith, especially by Catholic communities who derive their liturgical traditions directly from Latin Europe, as Mexican Catholics do. It was disrespectful for Playboy to make a mockery, however light, of a figure important to a religion that places an importance on chastity.

Do I think the issue should be recalled? No. Playboy should be able to say what they want, like everyone else. I'm not personally offended all that deeply, but I think Playboy did take their cover a bit too far, especially considering the country of publication.

Well, they were basically invading a place that had its own religion and didn't need any Jesuit interference. Why is it that one religion bent on world conquest is in any way better than any other? The shoguns didn't want their power challenged, so they burned those who tried...who were also culturally way different than everyone else there and trying to impose their culture on one that was already as well established as those who came. If you're trying to use the Japanese refusal of Jesuit missionaries as proof of Japanese intolerance of Christians, it's a weak argument.
Uh... Heh... ha... BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's just SO far off on Japanese history I... honestly just don't know where to begin to fix that.

Go read The Making of Modern Japan, the chapters that deal with the persecution and high intolerance of Christians during the Edo and early Meiji Eras to get what actually happened.

Go read The Making of Modern Japan, the chapters that deal with the persecution and high intolerance of Christians during the Edo and early Meiji Eras to get what actually happened.

Given what lies on Christianities doorstep, I can't exactly fault the Shoguns for attempting to crush it there and then. Yes, a lot of people were persecuted, yes, a lot of people were killed unjustly, but if not the Shoguns, then the missionaries and their converts would be doing it, that's something you can't deny.

Given what lies on Christianities doorstep, I can't exactly fault the Shoguns for attempting to crush it there and then. Yes, a lot of people were persecuted, yes, a lot of people were killed unjustly, but if not the Shoguns, then the missionaries and their converts would be doing it, that's something you can't deny.
Actually I can given that there was no planned rebellion by Christians in Japan. The Europeans were afraid of Japan at the time. There was a fear that the Japanese military was better than their own and we have reports written by traders in Japan stating that cause must not be given to bring Japan out into the world as a conquer lest the Christian world fall as it nearly did when Genghis Khan swept out of Asia with the Mongols.

And, given that Christianity was introduced into China before that and it also never experienced killings by missionaries and their converts...

So, no, I don't see where one can claim it was a kill or be killed situation. Nor can this claim stand up in the face of the fact that this persecution went on for 200 years, long after any foreign priest had been either expelled or executed.

lolz, maye she'l do a raunchy cover of joan of arc?

I can see why Christians would be a bit irritated with that, but i find it humorous.

Actually I can given that there was no planned rebellion by Christians in Japan.

Which didn't mean there wouldn't be one. We've had plentiful evidence of the kind of horrors that Christian missionaries fomented and what their converts did once they held the upper hand.

It would have been inevitable. Human nature, especially the fervent type, is like that.


There was a fear that the Japanese military was better than their own and we have reports written by traders in Japan stating that cause must not be given to bring Japan out into the world as a conquer lest the Christian world fall as it nearly did when Genghis Khan swept out of Asia with the Mongols.


Then explain to me why missionaries and whatnot kept sneaking in now and again despite official prohibition against their presence?


And, given that Christianity was introduced into China before that and it also never experienced killings by missionaries and their converts...

Never? That's a mighty big claim you've got there. In either case, Christianity did not appear to take a significant root among it's populace before the British became the de facto rulers by proxy.


So, no, I don't see where one can claim it was a kill or be killed situation. Nor can this claim stand up in the face of the fact that this persecution went on for 200 years, long after any foreign priest had been either expelled or executed.

Pfft, like that makes up for the fact that Christians have historically persecuted other religions wherever they held sway. It's still kill or be killed. Still is today in a variety of regions across the globe.

I always bet on the basest, darkest, most brutal parts of humanity to become dominant, and I've not lost such a bet yet.

Which didn't mean there wouldn't be one. We've had plentiful evidence of the kind of horrors that Christian missionaries fomented and what their converts did once they held the upper hand.
And we've had plenty of evidence that shows that the Japanese will rape and pillage if let lose for an instance. So that means we should have had double guarded the Japanese Ground and Air Self Defense Force when they were in Iraq, right? Just in case they decided to, you know, set up a few comfort stations, right?

We also have plenty of evidence that missionaries DON'T go on killing people either.

It would have been inevitable. Human nature, especially the fervent type, is like that.
Um... no. No, it is not.

Then explain to me why missionaries and whatnot kept sneaking in now and again despite official prohibition against their presence?

Oddly enough, the people who kept sneaking in tended to be idiots who had religious zeal and ignored their own governments. It still does not lead to any credence that there was any sort of planned Christian rebellion in Japan. There never was one. Nor were their any plans to have one that came from outside of Japan, regardless of what Anjin-sama said.

Never? That's a mighty big claim you've got there. In either case, Christianity did not appear to take a significant root among it's populace before the British became the de facto rulers by proxy.
Still didn't see any large killings like you claim is the standard case.

Pfft, like that makes up for the fact that Christians have historically persecuted other religions wherever they held sway. It's still kill or be killed. Still is today in a variety of regions across the globe.
Really? Where? Where can you point to me a place where Christian missionaries are conducting that behavior today? Can you show me what major Church is condoning it? I haven't heard any remarks from the Pope lately about how killing the heathens will save their souls or is excusable in any way shape or form. Nor do you have any backing that it was the case back in Japan.

And we've had plenty of evidence that shows that the Japanese will rape and pillage if let lose for an instance. So that means we should have had double guarded the Japanese Ground and Air Self Defense Force when they were in Iraq, right? Just in case they decided to, you know, set up a few comfort stations, right?


Which doesn't prove anything other than the darkest, basest part of human nature becoming dominant when it has opportunity to do so. The JSDF is hardly the only source of this. The USMC is hardly any different, and neither were the sort of people that were around 400 years ago who sailed to Japan in order to create another Christian kingdom nor were the one's who wanted to stamp it down.


We also have plenty of evidence that missionaries DON'T go on killing people either.

No, the missionaries historically have had their followers do the crime, so they can keep their hands "clean".


Um... no. No, it is not.


What, that humans caught up in their pretentious holier than thou attitudes won't commit murder and other horrors in their "divine mission"? You're only fooling yourself if you believe that kind of thinking really went away.


Oddly enough, the people who kept sneaking in tended to be idiots who had religious zeal and ignored their own governments.


And you don't see how this proves my point? It doesn't matter if the European governments didn't approve of it. All it requires is a crackhead with delusions of grandeur and a clever enough tongue to charm people into becoming cultists. The European nations might have had no such plans, but you cannot say the same thing for the crackhead missionaries who went there.


Still didn't see any large killings like you claim is the standard case.

The killings only happen once they have an undisputed hold on power and they don't have to pretend to be nice anymore. Even Mao pretended to care about the average Chinese peasant until he got into power and didn't need their support anymore.


Really? Where? Where can you point to me a place where Christian missionaries are conducting that behavior today?

Not Christian missionaries themselves. Like I said, they historically had their followers doing the bloody work. They preached hellfire, damnation and holy war, whipped their converts up, and let them loose like rabid dogs. The best part of this is that it's self perpetuating. Once the missionaries had a top line of converts, they would carry it on to the next generation.

As to who and what, I only need point out the numerous Christian terrorist organizations as well as certain Christian politicians who still buy the malarky of Manifest Destiny, Chosen Peoples or whatever superiority crap they spout. Ethnic cleansing isn't something only Muslims do.


Can you show me what major Church is condoning it?


They don't have to. They just have to sit back, let the crackheads do the dirty work, and then come in later once the blood is dried as the civilized "saviors".


I haven't heard any remarks from the Pope lately about how killing the heathens will save their souls or is excusable in any way shape or form. Nor do you have any backing that it was the case back in Japan.

Of course he wouldn't say anything about it. But once the killing is done, the heathens buried, and the murderers cleaned up, he'll happily accept them into the fold.

Hypocrisy is the medium of politics, even religious based ones.

*Snip*
Which is all very nice and cynical, but did not answer any of my points or provided any reference sources for your claims about Japan back during the Edo Era, or the modern day.

Which is all very nice and cynical, but did not answer any of my points or provided any reference sources for your claims about Japan back during the Edo Era, or the modern day.

What exactly do you need proven? That people (including Christians) go around killing others based on their religion? That firebrand missionaries/imams/religious heads incite their target populace into persecuting others? Here's a good place to look. Yes, yes, it's wiki, but it's a good place to start, with plenty of references to go through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Christians

The way you're defending this, it almost sounds like you think the missionaries who went there were only trying to spread Christianity and "brotherly love" and nothing else. Maybe some were. Historical record on the other hand, tells us better not to take the risk.

Oh, and since you mentioned missionaries in China, the blood that was spilled in the Boxer rebellion? That lies entirely on their heads. Them and their colonialist supporters who decided that they were the masters of the "inferior" Chinese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion

Missionaries are a cancer, whatever denomination/religion they come from. It's kill, surrender and be oppressed, or be killed.

What exactly do you need proven? That people (including Christians) go around killing others based on their religion? That firebrand missionaries/imams/religious heads incite their target populace into persecuting others? Here's a good place to look. Yes, yes, it's wiki, but it's a good place to start, with plenty of references to go through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Christians
I need proof of your claims that it was a kill or be killed situation in Japan, to wit, I need to see any evidence that subjugation of Japan was a goal of any European power and that they were using Christianity as a cover. Or, if the Church had such a goal. Because that is what you are claiming. The list you handed me from Wiki, BTW, does not mention Japan. Funny that.

The way you're defending this, it almost sounds like you think the missionaries who went there were only trying to spread Christianity and "brotherly love" and nothing else. Maybe some were. Historical record on the other hand, tells us better not to take the risk.
Can you show me that every single missionary or mission has done so? No? Then what does historical record have to do with anything at all? Historically, the UK has been the dominate sea power. Is it currently? Should the US prepare to fight the UK on the high seas? We have had two wars with them after all.

Oh, and since you mentioned missionaries in China, the blood that was spilled in the Boxer rebellion? That lies entirely on their heads. Them and their colonialist supporters who decided that they were the masters of the "inferior" Chinese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion
Did you even bother to read that article?

Missionaries are a cancer, whatever denomination/religion they come from. It's kill, surrender and be oppressed, or be killed.
Wow... I MUST have missed that when I went on a mission to help build houses for Habitat for Humanity. Maybe it was mentioned after the pizza luncheon. And of course all other missionaries that I have encountered both at home and here in Japan must be hiding this very well because all they have done is given me pamphlets. Now, I admit that I am not a tactical genius, put I'm pretty sure handing people a magazine and asking them to stop by for some coffee and a chat at church does not really work well with a stated goal of rousing up the population and open rebellion.

Uh... Heh... ha... BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Necessary?

You could have started here:

That's just SO far off on Japanese history I... honestly just don't know where to begin to fix that.

But since you had to go through the Forest of Mockery before reaching the important part, here:

Go read The Making of Modern Japan, the chapters that deal with the persecution and high intolerance of Christians during the Edo and early Meiji Eras to get what actually happened.

I shall reply with insouciant disdain, here:

What's to understand? Whitey shows up, uninvited. Japanese don't dig whitey's God. Whiteys try converting Japanese. Japanese take offense, and a few katana-slashes later, whitey is largely cold cuts.

It doesn't need fixing. Even if it's wrong, it's close enough to how Joe Sushi probably felt at the time, that any book on the topic would be a whoooole lot of window dressing.

Sorry, I respect your scholarship in the area, if not your obnoxious presentation of your perceived necessity for it in this particular discussion, but why would missionaries meeting resistance in a homogenous society need any study beyond that sentence?

I need proof of your claims that it was a kill or be killed situation in Japan, to wit, I need to see any evidence that subjugation of Japan was a goal of any European power and that they were using Christianity as a cover. Or, if the Church had such a goal. Because that is what you are claiming. The list you handed me from Wiki, BTW, does not mention Japan. Funny that.

Precedent NERVRUN. And I've not said that the Church nor the European powers would have had a hand in it. They would have, however, been quite happy to take advantage of it had it occurred. Or do you think they would have all shaken their collective heads and played nice?


Can you show me that every single missionary or mission has done so? No? Then what does historical record have to do with anything at all? Historically, the UK has been the dominate sea power. Is it currently? Should the US prepare to fight the UK on the high seas? We have had two wars with them after all.

Historically, human nature hasn't changed. A lot of things change, but not that. And I imagine the US does have plans for invading and defending against the UK somewhere in the Pentagon, as well as every other nation on Earth with sufficient power to be a threat. Whether they intend to act on it or not is another matter.

It's called being cautious.


Did you even bother to read that article?


Did you read why the rebellion occurred? The elevation of missionaries to stations exceeding local governors and judges, their extraterritoriality and more, all of those things brought things to a boil. They might not all have deserved it, but as a whole, their actions indisputably led to it.


Wow... I MUST have missed that when I went on a mission to help build houses for Habitat for Humanity. Maybe it was mentioned after the pizza luncheon. And of course all other missionaries that I have encountered both at home and here in Japan must be hiding this very well because all they have done is given me pamphlets. Now, I admit that I am not a tactical genius, put I'm pretty sure handing people a magazine and asking them to stop by for some coffee and a chat at church does not really work well with a stated goal of rousing up the population and open rebellion.

You're obsessed with the open rebellion idea aren't you? Granted, that was what started the discussion, but the very idea of a missionary is one who goes around trying to convert others. In a first world country like Japan, with high information dissemination, they can't use the tricks they used to in the heydays of European superpower status.

But in places like Africa, they get away with a lot of despicable acts like withholding charitable supplies for anyone who won't convert and similar.

They can't get away with trying to overthrow countries anymore or subvert rulers with alcohol and guns so that they'd initiate pogroms on those who didn't convert. But that doesn't mean the rotten core in most of them has gone away.

So maybe I'll admit it's not kill or be killed anymore. Now it's convert or be left to die in a place that was turned to shit by the missionaries predecessors several generations ago.

I remember a documentary series that looked at the history of erotica and pornography, they featured some Mexican porn from the early days of cinema. The most popular films involved portrayals of Catholic priests. Presumably these were popular because of Mexico's largely Catholic population. I am assuming this is why Playboy have done this, because they think it will sell, and it will be to Christians that it sells. I can't really see this kind of eroticised religious imagery being part of the sexual fantasies of anyone who wasn't raised in a religious atmosphere.

I remember a documentary series that looked at the history of erotica and pornography, they featured some Mexican porn from the early days of cinema. The most popular films involved portrayals of Catholic priests. Presumably these were popular because of Mexico's largely Catholic population. I am assuming this is why Playboy have done this, because they think it will sell, and it will be to Christians that it sells. I can't really see this kind of eroticised religious imagery being part of the sexual fantasies of anyone who wasn't raised in a religious atmosphere.

Interesting point.

you have strayed from your point.

Nope, TBF did not. As implied: that most people would not consider that depiction of Mary breastfeeding porn, erotic or decent masturbation material NOW does not mean people didn't when it was made.

Why is it such a shock to people that the churches have used sex to lure people ? We have had plenty of topics on marriage and such here - and the whole "sex before being married in our church is wrong" thing is part of the same strategy.
Churchleaders knew something about psychology - give them credit.

Nope, TBF did not. As implied: that most people would not consider that depiction of Mary breastfeeding porn, erotic or decent masturbation material NOW does not mean people didn't when it was made.

Why is it such a shock to people that the churches have used sex to lure people ? We have had plenty of topics on marriage and such here - and the whole "sex before being married in our church is wrong" thing is part of the same strategy.
Churchleaders knew something about psychology - give them credit.
we were talking about whether or not playboy did this for its dramatic effect.

whatever else he wanted (or you wanted) to talk about is unnteresting to me.

we were talking about whether or not playboy did this for its dramatic effect.

whatever else he wanted (or you wanted) to talk about is unnteresting to me.

Fair enough. I am quite certain playboy did this to draw attention, and agree with you on that point.
That you do not wish to debate if this "drama" or "going crazy" as the topic title suggests is justified, hypocritical or plain silly is a pity.

oh because there is some OTHER reason to make porn pics of the mother of god? some kind of porn imperative to cover every possible fetish out there and this is the only one they had missed and it just happened to be their december issue?

Dude, lighten up, she's not really Mary.

Necessary?

You could have started here:

But since you had to go through the Forest of Mockery before reaching the important part, here:
Well, when you started off with this:
Well, they were basically invading a place that had its own religion and didn't need any Jesuit interference. Why is it that one religion bent on world conquest is in any way better than any other? The shoguns didn't want their power challenged, so they burned those who tried...who were also culturally way different than everyone else there and trying to impose their culture on one that was already as well established as those who came. If you're trying to use the Japanese refusal of Jesuit missionaries as proof of Japanese intolerance of Christians, it's a weak argument.
What were you expecting, a "Sorry Dave, but that is incorrect?"

I shall reply with insouciant disdain, here:

What's to understand? Whitey shows up, uninvited. Japanese don't dig whitey's God. Whiteys try converting Japanese. Japanese take offense, and a few katana-slashes later, whitey is largely cold cuts.

It doesn't need fixing. Even if it's wrong, it's close enough to how Joe Sushi probably felt at the time, that any book on the topic would be a whoooole lot of window dressing.

Sorry, I respect your scholarship in the area, if not your obnoxious presentation of your perceived necessity for it in this particular discussion, but why would missionaries meeting resistance in a homogenous society need any study beyond that sentence?
Because a whole hell of a lot was going on at the time. For one thing, the anti-Christian edicts had been issued a number of years prior to the large purge, but had not been enforced for decades. The reason why they had not been enforced was due to the rather strange political structure Japan found itself in at the end of the Sengoku Period (Waring States) and the maneuvering that happened before the Battle of Sekigahara (Where the Tokugawa won and started the Shogunate). The other reason of course was that trade during that 100 year period prior to the closing of Japan to the West was very profitable for both sides.

Going from there, why then did the Shogun suddenly decide to kill all Christians in Japan and close the country? Was it, as you have said, because they didn't like Christians coming in and stealing their country? No. This was not something Japan was particularly worried about. Think about this for a second, European countries abided by the restrictions imposed by Japan. Why would that be if they were busy forcing their way into every other country at the time? Because Japan was very strong. This was the Tokugawa at their peak with samurai who were full warriors, not the entitled fops that they became at the end of the Edo Period. Japanese guns were the best in the world and their armies large. After the Battle of Sekigahara, this was a (more or less) unified country with a strong central authority. So, the standard response of the Shogun feared invasion of which the priests were the advance guard doesn't fit.

Japan also has a long history of religious live and let live. Shinto and Buddhism had existed side-by-side for a number of centuries by that point (With various flare-ups that did indeed get quite bloody). In fact, a number of Buddhist temples had already done to Jesus and Mary what it had done to the Shinto deities, namely declare that obviously Jesus and Mary were just Buddhist saints so it was ok to worship them and venerate them as saints.

Finally, as I stated to NAS, there literally were no plans (Or at least none have ever been found) for a Christian rebellion in Japan. It is also very unlikely to have ever gotten off the ground given that the Christians had a handful of daimyos (Lords) in Kyushu and had not made much, if any, headland in the main island of Honshu.

So what happened?

Pretty much what you saw was a power play by the Shogunate. Part of it was due to the fact that the Shogun was annoyed with the European powers. Not because of a fear of invasion, but because most of them, excluding the Dutch (Who, it should be noted were still allowed to trade after the exclusion of everyone else), couldn't leave Europe at home. Japan, and the Shogunate, wanted trade and information. What they didn't want, but got, was the Europe's on going wars, particularly the feud between Protestant England and Catholic Spain (Remember, we're talking the 1600's when Spain was the great empire and England was struggling for a foothold). However, both nations continued to carry on their fight in Japan, something that the Shogun was not a happy camper about. But, the main reason is that the anti-Christian edicts were a great weapon to force the will of the Tokugawa government on the southern end of Japan.

After the Battle of Sekigahara, the Shogunate rearranged Japan around. Favored daimyo who had supported the Tokugawa got the best land, and, even more telling, were placed close to the new capital at Edo (Tokyo). Those who had not supported the Tokugawa, but for whatever reason were not killed, were often pushed off to the west side of Japan, far from Edo. It was an elegant arrangement because it meant the Tokugawa and their allies had the core of Japan well guarded. None of the old enemies could then band together and cut them off from their power base (Something that had happened to a number of Shoguns in the past. Tokugawa Ieyasu was nothing if not a wise student of history). However, there was the problem of bringing the farthest flung domains under control and the Buddhist temples, which had been rather autonomous and had been put down before, were starting to kick a little. The anti-Christian edicts solved all of the above problems in a master stroke. With it, the Tokugawa government had the weapon to force the Christian daimyos from power and expel the trouble making southern barbarians that couldn't figure out that Japan was not Europe. Even better to protect this "land of the Gods", everyone in Japan was forced to register at their local Buddhist temple.

Think about this for a second, the edict had been written with the reason that Japan was the Land of the Gods so it was inappropriate for Christianity to be there. The Land of the Gods is a Shinto belief, not Buddhist. And yet, everyone was told to register at a Buddhist temple, not a Shinto shrine. The reason for this was quickly apparent. By requiring the Buddhist temples to record and vouch for the faith of everyone in their district (and by setting up such districts) the Tokugawa government had just curtailed the autonomy of those temples. Instead of having to fight for worshipers, they were guaranteed anyone who lived in their district. Even better, since they had just been made responsible to the government for those lists, the Tokugawa now had a say in the temples and their running. Any troublesome Buddhist priest now had to answer to a Tokugawa bureaucrat (And believe you, me, these guys had a number of fun ways of making someone sweat). In one stroke, the Tokugawa got the southern end of Japan under its control. There wasn't any fear of cultural contamination. There was just a pure power play with the Christians as scapegoats.

And it kept going, for over 200 years. Those edicts were in force until about 20 years (IIRC, I don't have my reference books with me right now) after the Meiji Restoration in response to heavy pressure by the UK, France, and the United States. The accusation of 'Christian!' became just as politically useful as the cry of 'Communist!' was in the US during the 50's. And for much the same reason. Anyone so called, even if they proved otherwise, would be labeled as a troublemaker in the eyes of the Tokugawa. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people were killed (brutally by the way, the Christians were not considered worthy enough for beheading. Crucifixion, upside down in low tide to allow the rising waters to drown them, boiling in oil or hot water for days, or other wonderful methods of pain were the norm) because of their faith, or lack thereof.

So, yes, you were incorrect, Dave, and there was a whole hell of a lot more going on that the single sentence that you wrote. Even all that I just wrote is naught but a light skimming and if you do decide to read more, I DO highly recommend The Making of Modern Japan by Marius B. Jansen (Just allow yourself a couple of months to finish it, massive doesn't even begin to describe it) and, for the later years of the edicts, Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, 1852-1912 by Donald Keene (And allow yourself another couple of months. Actually, it might just be better to put aside at least a half a year for those things).

Precedent NERVRUN. And I've not said that the Church nor the European powers would have had a hand in it. They would have, however, been quite happy to take advantage of it had it occurred. Or do you think they would have all shaken their collective heads and played nice?
There is however a rather large difference between planning a rebellion or invasion (Which is what you were claiming as the historical truth) and taking advantage of the situation. Repelling an invasion provides justification for killing someone (As long as that someone is an actual enemy) stating that it's ok to kill someone because they might take advantage of a situation that might occur however...

Historically, human nature hasn't changed. A lot of things change, but not that. And I imagine the US does have plans for invading and defending against the UK somewhere in the Pentagon, as well as every other nation on Earth with sufficient power to be a threat. Whether they intend to act on it or not is another matter.

It's called being cautious.
Making plans is caution; killing people for something that hasn't happened yet nor was never planed to happen is not caution, it's murder and genocide.

Did you read why the rebellion occurred? The elevation of missionaries to stations exceeding local governors and judges, their extraterritoriality and more, all of those things brought things to a boil. They might not all have deserved it, but as a whole, their actions indisputably led to it.
There were a lot of reasons for the Boxer Uprising (And it wasn't a rebellion, thank you very much), the extraterritoriality of the Church in China was part of a long, festering wound brought on by a number of things of which the Church and missionaries had some part in some, a great part in others, and none at all in others. But, the point is, you claimed that missionaries incite their converts to rebel, attack, or repress other non-Christian natives. The Boxer Uprising was non-Christian natives going after the missionaries and Christians. So unless you're trying to claim that they all martyred themselves in an effort to bring in the Western powers +Japan to subdue a country already subdued... The Boxer Uprising does not proof of your claim make.

You're obsessed with the open rebellion idea aren't you? Granted, that was what started the discussion,
Yes, because that is what you claimed is going on. I have yet to see proof of your claim at all.

but the very idea of a missionary is one who goes around trying to convert others. In a first world country like Japan, with high information dissemination, they can't use the tricks they used to in the heydays of European superpower status.
Or they could just not be using tricks period. God, Gold, and Empire is long dead.

But in places like Africa, they get away with a lot of despicable acts like withholding charitable supplies for anyone who won't convert and similar.
You know, I have seen this claim numerous times in NSG but I have yet to see a source for it. Do you have one? Also, do you have a source that would note that this is the SOP for the bulk of the hundreds of missionary works in Africa and around the planet who are aiding others?

They can't get away with trying to overthrow countries anymore or subvert rulers with alcohol and guns so that they'd initiate pogroms on those who didn't convert. But that doesn't mean the rotten core in most of them has gone away.
Prove it.

So maybe I'll admit it's not kill or be killed anymore. Now it's convert or be left to die in a place that was turned to shit by the missionaries predecessors several generations ago.
The problems in Africa did not start with the missionaries. Try the slave trade.

Well, when you started off with this:

What were you expecting, a "Sorry Dave, but that is incorrect?"

*snip*

Not necessarily, but since I wasn't rude to you, I expected to be treated in kind.

Now, with that out of the way, excellent post.

However, Shinto and Buddhism coexisting isn't surprising at all. Shinto is the religion of the Earth and Earthly events, nature and everything mundane. Buddhism is more spiritual and ethereal, and thus deals with births, weddings, death, the mind, and the spirit realm. They are natural complements. If I recall correctly, there have been a couple of dust-ups between Buddhism and Shinto, but not many.

So I don't think you can use the harmony between a yang-and-yin pair of religions as grounds to wonder why Christianity was less than acceptable. The notion of the powerful hanging on to power by any means necessary strikes me as one hell of a lot more human, and therefore more likely a reason for the disharmony with regard to missionaries.

Other than that, again, excellent post. Having been to Kobe and Hyogo Prefecture and taken cultural anthropology with a focus on the re-opening of Japan to the West (the US, in particular), it was a terrific blast from the past.

Not necessarily, but since I wasn't rude to you, I expected to be treated in kind.
You're right. I was more than snarky, I was down right rude and it was undeserved. I apologize then. _/(-_-)\_

Now, with that out of the way, excellent post.
Thank you.

However, Shinto and Buddhism coexisting isn't surprising at all. Shinto is the religion of the Earth and Earthly events, nature and everything mundane. Buddhism is more spiritual and ethereal, and thus deals with births, weddings, death, the mind, and the spirit realm. They are natural complements. If I recall correctly, there have been a couple of dust-ups between Buddhism and Shinto, but not many.
Depended upon the point in time. There haven't not been that many dust ups and most of them have been politically inspired rather than religiously inspired, but it depended a great deal on what was going on at the time. The point I was trying to make though is that, for the most part, the Japanese had been tolerant of other religions. While Shinto and Buddhism didn't really step on each other's toes a lot, they did make efforts to incorporate each other. Shinto deities as Buddhist saints or Buddhist saints as Shinto kami and both religions sharing the same grounds and the like. As I pointed out, Buddhism had already started the same trick with Christianity and there is no telling just what might have happened had Christianity not been driven underground.

So I don't think you can use the harmony between a yang-and-yin pair of religions as grounds to wonder why Christianity was less than acceptable. The notion of the powerful hanging on to power by any means necessary strikes me as one hell of a lot more human, and therefore more likely a reason for the disharmony with regard to missionaries.
Very true, it was a power play, but the power in question was internal rather than a response to an external threat (I.e. the missionaries). The missionaries just made excellent scapegoats and continued to do so for a few centuries. Which was, what I was trying to point out, an intolerant act against Christians. I mean, 100 years after the last gaijin leaves and people are still conducting witch hunts for Christians to kill...

But, getting back to the original point (anyone remember the original point and why a thread about a nekid Mary wannabe on the cover of Playboy went into an extended Japanese history lesson?), it would be incorrect to say that the missionaries tried to force their faith on the Japanese. They did not have the upper hand in that and were trying to convert rather than force.

You're right. I was more than snarky, I was down right rude and it was undeserved. I apologize then. _/(-_-)\_


Thank you.


Depended upon the point in time. There haven't not been that many dust ups and most of them have been politically inspired rather than religiously inspired, but it depended a great deal on what was going on at the time. The point I was trying to make though is that, for the most part, the Japanese had been tolerant of other religions. While Shinto and Buddhism didn't really step on each other's toes a lot, they did make efforts to incorporate each other. Shinto deities as Buddhist saints or Buddhist saints as Shinto kami and both religions sharing the same grounds and the like. As I pointed out, Buddhism had already started the same trick with Christianity and there is no telling just what might have happened had Christianity not been driven underground.


Very true, it was a power play, but the power in question was internal rather than a response to an external threat (I.e. the missionaries). The missionaries just made excellent scapegoats and continued to do so for a few centuries. Which was, what I was trying to point out, an intolerant act against Christians. I mean, 100 years after the last gaijin leaves and people are still conducting witch hunts for Christians to kill...

But, getting back to the original point (anyone remember the original point and why a thread about a nekid Mary wannabe on the cover of Playboy went into an extended Japanese history lesson?), it would be incorrect to say that the missionaries tried to force their faith on the Japanese. They did not have the upper hand in that and were trying to convert rather than force.

You are wise beyond your years, good sir. *bows*

Only if one assumes that, (a) all Christians, past and present, are of the same mind, the same denomination, the same political views, and that, (b) all Christians believe stuff like the Crusades was morally justifiable and sanctioned by their God.

They should be, they do afterall follow the same leader. Maoist of today arn't anything like Maoists of the past. Nazis of today aren't like Nazis of the past, doesnt mean we shouldn't clump them together. (well it does but you know what I'm trying to say) Nazis are clumped together whether past or present.

They should be, they do afterall follow the same leader.
But they certainly don't all follow the Pope, and I can think of no Christian alive who follows the Popes of the 11th to 13th centuries.