Im not convinced of a tribute, just as I am not convinced its a mockery. That is my point. In my original post I talked about the assumptions one makes. I think we should take a step back and think about things instead get offended or write 'holier than thou' articles on the internet. Just an outsiders observation as I wouldnt even have made the connection to the Virgin Mary had I seen that Playboy at the news stand. Honestly.
I think given the timing, location and photo itself, the attempt at controversy is evident. How does one get controversy? Well one method would be to not mock, but be disrespectful of a religious figure. Granted they could just be trying to push the barrier a bit if it was a tribute, but given the surrounding circumstances, I think all the evidence points to playboy at least being disrespectful of a religious icon. I think most semi religious people, or some that grew up in it, would. I am not that religious outside of my own reading and I made the connection.
I still think if they wanted to MOCK the Virgin Mary, they could have really gone over the top in reversing what her message is. They could have had Gentleman lining up, with Cash in her hands....They could have shown and old hag with several babies clinging to her in a motherly way...and they could have shown her in a compromising image contemplating or in the act of "aborting our savior" all of those would have been MOCKING, there are lots of ways to actually MOCK what is a beautiful message and beautiful story of my Christian faith. However, in this "so-called" MOCK (aside from the Magazine and its traditional functionality and role in Magazine media) it chose a very beautiful Young woman, draped in a common robe attributed to her historical depiction. P.S. they didn't have Bra's back in her day, so the subtle skin simply matches the magazine's message and audience (perhaps I am not the traditional Christian, wouldn't be the first time this was stated). Its certainly not nudity! Again, I find the Cover Photo to be beautiful. I just don't see the offense here. As a Christian male, I think its artistically done. Provocative to some, but where is the Mockery? If this image was released in the context of a Christian Magazine, on her day of days, this would be praised, far more than condemned. So is it strictly because the image graces the cover of a NUDITY Magazine???? Thats hypocritical to me. * I am talking about this cover photo only, I don't what whats inside the magazine if this theme was continued in more compromising images. mock /mɒk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mok] Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object) 1.to attack or treat with ridicule, contempt, or derision.2.to ridicule by mimicry of action or speech; mimic derisively.3.to mimic, imitate, or counterfeit.4.to challenge; defy: His actions mock convention. 5.to deceive, delude, or disappoint.–verb (used without object) 6.to use ridicule or derision; scoff; jeer (often fol. by at).–noun 7.a contemptuous or derisive imitative action or speech; mockery or derision.8.something mocked or derided; an object of derision.
Hmm I don't think its so much mocking as disrespectful and meant to be controversial. Having said that though in mockeries defense you can be subtle when mocking something.
Controversial as a Cover image of Nudity magazine only...but again, its not Mocking or being disrespectful from an artistic standpoint - thats what the original article and this thread suggested. I think thats inaccurate by a mile. Again, at least not this cover photo. From a work of art standpoint, its very beautiful...and in any other context, especially one with a Christmas Theme or Christian Theme I think it would be praised...it may be deemed risqué to somes liking, but still beautiful in a different context. Thats how I saw it the minute this thread brought notice to it.
not really. maybe in the 50s playboy covers were controversial just by being semi nude covers. Now its not as controversial on its own. Like I said it can be seen as just an artistic photo. But given the timing, location, title, etc. I think the evidence points away from just another cover.
And none of that adds up to MOCKING the Virgin Mary!Those are just words and thoughts that people read into to make/meet their own personal agenda and conclusions.
Never said it was mocking re read what I said. And no offense bro because you see it as art does not make it art. You can just as easily be seen as having his own agenda
Sorry, I didnt mean you said it....again, was addressing the Title of the Article and Thread. Its clearly not porn, its clearly not mocking, so where is the offensiveness of it?? It can only be cause its on the cover over a commonly known Nudity Magazine....that's hypocritical in my view. Thats all. Clearly its just my opinion.
To you it is not mocking. I grant that. To others, myself included, the textbook definition of mocking as "holding up to ridicule" fits. I think we all should exercise care at assuming our opinions are the only proper ones to hold. Now was the headline writer also going for the sensational and salacious? I think that would also be a yes. The devotion to Mary among Mexican Catholics, especially "the Virgin of Guadalupe" is difficult for North Americans to fathom but I think if they were polled, they would have clearly seen the intentional provocation and disrespect. Is it a huge deal, no. I would expect nothing less from the Playboy empire. I also choose to not let it get majorly under my skin otherwise I let that empire "win".
Many thanks Ohio.....but please expand on ridicule? Based on the Cover shot...how is our Virgin Mary being ridiculed in this image? Is it simply because it graces the cover of this magazine??? I will hopefully properly phase my opinion this way, that cover photo and all its innuendo, in no way shape of form, changes or detracts from the Blessed Mother I hold near and dear to my heart. Does it yours?
Let me just step in here and explain it for everybody. At the risk of being crude, you shouldn't want to **** the Virgin Mary. Capisce?
I should say not, and if that Photo does, than again, we clearly view images differently! For one major reason, that photo is not of the Virgin Mary!!!!!!!
The nature of the magazine is a start but then the head covering without a tunic, the hint of nudity, and the comeliness of the pose all combine for me to bring ridicule. Do they change my view of Mary? Of course not, that view is formed from scripture and theology. That those things should be set aside for quick titilation is my problem.
That would kinda defeat the purpose of a "discussion forum" wouldn't it? The disagreement here has been respectful and probably informative. For those who were highly offended they learned that perhaps some of the offense was in their own heads. For those who saw no error, perhaps they have been more sensitized to the feelings of others. Win all around.
Sorry, brother. I can't relax. It is something that is important to me, very important to me. In fact, I see Mary as my mother in Heaven. So to see her represented in that way is disgusting. And yes, I totally believe it was intentional. Controversy sells. If I allow myself to relax, then what is the point of standing up for what you believe in?
meh, I'm not readily upset about it. In fact I am not upset at all at it. But I think you can call it for what it is and not be upset.
I don't see it as mocking at all. Then again I'm not Christian so my view comes from a different angle. Maybe, just maybe, the person whos idea this was is also not Christian and didn't see it as mocking either.
How gauche', standing on Beliefs, or Principles is merely another source of division...and who wants that to happen? Right? Now what a fascinating discussion could result from a debate around the idea, or controversy, of "was Jesus conceived via anthrogensis, or whether there was an actual sort of impregnation"? The mechanics of the Incarnation is a ripe idea IMO.
I'll have to remember that the next time I'm told to relax about being portrayed as green-faced and evil.
...or when I'm told that why go to a priest for confession when God should be my confessor. We ALL get it in one form or another.
I know you have a wink with this, but seriously, I disagree. It was listening to you that has made me more careful in my use of language about Wiccans. The learning process works that way. It is fashionable to denounce political correctness and I will fully agree that it has often gone waaaaay to far. But, it started as a deliberate attempt to inform folks when they were offending others. We don't like it when we are the offenders but we all sure scream when we are the offendees! To poke fun at someone's religious beliefs, Christian, Wiccian, or whatever, to commercially sell a product, especially one thnat is in opposition to the religion's beliefs (in this case Playboy magazine) is always going to be wrong in my opinion. A couple of years ago my denomination sold rights to "Davey and Goliath" to Mountain Dew for some serious change. D&G are icons within Lutheranism and a generation of claymation watchers. In the first of what was to be a series of commercials Mountain Dew had Davey saying "We've just been hosed!" MD didn't need to mock the chracter, but chose to anyway, we pulled our lisence back and left the money on the table. Mockery, especially of beliefs, is wrong and I will stand up to attack it whether it mocks me or you. I may need to be educated when it mocks someone else but that just makes me slow witted not insincere.
Not I , said the fly. Pastor Keith said it very eloquently so I will not repeat it. If, as a Catholic, I am not appalled, then I am not paying attention.
Devil's advocate (no pun intended) then Rev. Do you think it's acceptable then when Christians and Catholics portray people of my faith the way they do? Not looking to start an argument, just curious. It would seem sometimes that those who get offended the easiest are the quickest to tell others who are offended to not pay any mind to what's offending them. Again, not trying to start a conflict, but over the course of my life I've found that those of the Christian persuasion do have a tendency to belittle others, then scream the loudest when the gun faces back at them.
Pun not taken. Please elaborate your second statement about portrayal of people of faith. Didn't understand. I have not told anyone not to pay mind to what's offending them. I'm sorry if that has been your experience. You are not starting a conflict, brother. If the gospel is not preached with love, then the message is lost. I enjoy speaking with you and debating our beliefs but only if it is done with love (not the groovy kind of love) but with respect. You are not a fool so I'm sure you understand. Again, I'm sorry that people and/or you get belittled. Unfortunately, people remember the few who yell the loudest rather than the work of faith as a whole. That is what makes us human. Although, taking a stand for what you believe in should not be watered down. It should cut through another's heart as a knife but not to injure, only to show truth. Finally, and putting myself out on the line, I wish I could speak to you one day about God's love...not to demean you, criticize you, or hug you but to show you just how much He loves you. When I preach, that is what I talk about. Pastor Keith, debby and others can attest to that.
It's quite easy to explain Rev. Turn on your TV or watch the movies. The word "Witch" is always used in a negative way. We're portrayed as evil, devil worshipers (hilarious since we don't believe in him), and immmoral. No matter how many times it's proven other wise, it's brushed aside. It's constant, my friend. Sure I do. The problem with that sentiment though Rev, is that it is always Christians who perpetrate the belittling on us. I've never had a problem with anyone from any other faith concerning my beliefs. However, I've had Christians ask me to leave wake services because of my pentacle necklace. I've had Christians ask me to remove my pentacle. I've had Christians tell me that my Goddess was the devil in disguise. I've had Christians tell me I'm really following their god, I just don't realize it yet. It goes on and on. Christians - led by priests - have picketed army bases for allowing Witches to practice their faith on them. Witches - until this year - weren't allowed to have pentacles their headstones when buried in military cemetaries. Witch stores and schools are routinely picketed - in most cases by entire church congregations - and forced to close down or move. Do some research Rev, it'll boggle your mind. It's never the Jews, or Muslims, or anyone else. Always the Christians. Ah, but truth is relative Rev. What is "truth" to you may not be to others. And right here is the biggest problem I have with Christians, Rev... WHY would I want to hear about your God? Would I sit and tell you about my Goddess' love? No. If you wanted to find Her you'd do so on your own. Not to sound rude...but I could care less if he loves me, for I don't believe in him or worship him. I've said this a million times in these forums, Christians would find alot less people having problems with them if they followed George Carlin's "commandment": "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself." What a great place the world would be if everyone did that!
Not in Harry Potter. I can understand why some would be bothered by the Pentacle necklace as that is a symbol of the devil to Christians but I will have to research the other statements. I apologize if I offended, brother. By offering to tell you about Him, I was only trying to show you a side that you might not have been familiar with, but I can see that you do not want to hear it. As far as the Goddess' love. If I wanted to know about her, I would ask someone who was familiar with her to tell me about her. It's all about witnessing, IMO. We will just agree to disagree.
Brother Rev....I'm almost beside myself at the ignorance being displayed here. I do not mean to offend you, as I think you're an intelligent guy, but I'm blown away that you actually typed this statement. You really, truly need to do some research, and not just blindly follow what's been told to you about things. The pentacle - or even the pentagram - is no symbol of the devil. There IS no devil in Pagan beliefs. Saying this is akin to me saying the cross is a symbol of Godzilla. And to which Christians is the pentacle a symbol of evil? Only the truly ignorant. Look it up, early Christians actually borrowed the pentacle from Pagans and used it to represent the five wounds of Jesus. It's a symbol of the Goddess Venus. The ignorance that the Christians used towards it comes from the fact that the pentacle is associated with the Roman word "lucifer", which is a term used for Venus. Of course, the ignorant will see that word and immediately associate it with the name Lucifer. The pentacle's points actually stand for earth, air, fire, water and spirit. No devil is mentioned. Now...again here's where the ignorance comes into play. Devil worshipers DO use the pentacle....upside down, the same way they use your cross. Doesn't make the pentacle any more evil than your cross is. This is just another shining example of how we've been misrepresented, and how - hate to say it - Christians keep the myths and lies going. You do need to stop watching late night horror movies for info on us, Rev. Another shining example of the Chirstian bias....notice how dolphindebby thanks each post that you have made but none of mine, even though my points are valid. A nice way to crystalize everything I'm saying.
pagan, I am trying to digest all of this info. I'm not excluding thanks because I am so biased, it's because I am trying to see your point of view. But you're right, I should have acknowledged you and the info you're giving to us. I have utmost respect for you and your beliefs. I admit at first, I didn't, as you say, I only saw what I wanted to see. But, I enjoy your input and thoughts. So, thank you.
I hate horror movies. Again, it seems that I am sticking my foot in my mouth and speaking without knowledge, so I will say what I know. I follow Christ. Why the symbols seem to or can be distorted over time, His message of love remains. I will however apologize for my ignorance as it seems to have offended you, brother. I do, indeed, need to read a whole lot more. Hopefully, when my doctorate is over, I can dedicate more time to that. I also know how religion can divide so many so I will end it like this. Faith is what helps me believe. We have talked about this before. Call it simplistic, childlike, but it works for me. It's like the old Christian story about the man who gave his life to Christ and was questioned about Him. "Do you know how may miracles he had?" "No" "Do you know how many people he healed?" "No" "Do you know where he grew up?" "No" "Then how can you call yourself a follower?" "You're right. It is embarrassing that I know so very little about Jesus. But, I know this: I was a drunk and he cured me, I was a womanizer, and I'm not anymore. I am what I am because of him." Pagan, while I may not know everything that I need to know, I know what He's done for me and for my life. Same as your Goddess has done for you. I hope to learn a whole lot more very soon. One thing I will never claim to be is an expert of Him! I hope this "squares" us.
When I was 13 I went to a bar-mitzvah and was ejected for having a 5X3 mm cross in my lapel. Since I was not confirmed and thus "a man" by Jewish standards, they accepted that I would not wear a yarmulke but the cross was "over their line". A wake is a religious service, if you mean a visitation that's different but to wear a symbol of one faith during the worship service of another is always going to get you in trouble. Part of my concern in talking to you, Pagan, is that your representation of Wicca is different than what I have gotten before from self-proclaimed Wiccans. There does not seem to be a normative text or theology that is easily accessable. Just like fools have used Christ's message of "love" to promote cults and destructive ideologies, it seems that self-proclaimed witches have done the same thing and muddied the waters for Wiccans generally.
No offense was taken bro. I was just amazed that you thought that about the pentacle. And that is what faith should be, whatever works for you. And that's a wonderful thing Rev. Whatever shoes you feel the most comfortable in, wear them. The only beef I have with people - not you in particular - is when they try to make me wear their shoes. We were never "un-square" bro. Actually Ohio, a wake isn't a religious service. The funeral is. A wake is the body laid out in a funeral parlor to pay last respects to. I drove 45 miles and showed up to pay my respects to a friend's father - who I had never even met - and was greeted by his Irish Catholic mother's barbed comments. Way uncool. The Wiccans you probably run into are the ones who watched "Charmed" and "The Craft" and join the faith because they think it's "cool". ...all the wrong reasons. Most of us are pretty low key. As with any other faith bro, more often than not it's not the message but the messengers who are the problem.
