Posted on 12/12/2008 10:02:26 AM PST by Joiseydude
Playboy has got into the Christmas spirit — by putting the Virgin Mary nude on its Mexican cover.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Last time I checked, albeit many years ago, the magazine was loaded with soft port -- including pictures of nude women, depictions of simulated sexual intercourse, racy cartoons, lewd letters, profanity and other forms of smut.
I doubt if Hef has significantly softened his material over the past three decades.
“Mary is co-redemtrix”
There is where our theology differs. Declaring Mary co-redemtrix raises her to the level of a deity. That, IMHO, is blasphemy.
Jesus is the ONLY redeemer, and the ONLY one anybody needs to be redeemed. Everybody needs to be redeemed by Jesus.
Mary herself needed to redeemed by Jesus (her physical son) to be redeemed and enter heaven.
******************
Exactly right. The goal of pornography has nothing to do with motherhood or love of God. What was the intent of the publishers of this unfortunate magazine? That is one question that I think we can all easily deduce.
I found the entire issue online (PDF) and am downloading it now. I will see just how “immoral” it is (probably not that bad)...
Yet you post a news story about the current state of society and you get the very religious members complaining about the content of such threads.
It's a news story, and the story ain't gonna change no matter how much you might object to the directly related content of such stories.
how typical. lefties defiling America and Christianity, all the while telling everyone how brave they are for printing such a cover.
here’s a thought for those ‘extra brave’ publishers... how about printing a rendering of Mohammed f*cking a pig?
now that would be brave. (will never happen, since it would upset people... unlike defiling Mary’s imagine)
Pssst, it's the MEXICAN version of playboy.
YOU SAID” Frankly, that picture looks pretty tasteful, not much unlike classic paintings of Mary nursing.
Problem is that there is no intention nor any subtle implications that the picture is meant to be a respectful depiction of the Incarnation and the humaness of Jesus and Mary.
It is purely purient and disrespectful. And meant to be so.
Stop with the defense of such crap please.
so? mexico is very Christian and the lefties that run the organization just can’t help themselves.
You are mistaken.
This is a matter of common sense and reason.
Mary was pre-redeemed by Christ. She is immaculate by a favor of God. If she were not so conceived, then Christ would be stained with Original Sin.
Since Christ could not be born of Woman without the freewill choice of a human being, Mary, and could not assume His humanity without the contribution of human flesh, then Mary IS a necessary and integral part of God’s Plan of Salvation, and THAT fact makes her CO-redemptrix... NOT the redeemer, but that which is necessary for the redeemer to act as such!
No, since Mexico was first founded as a country independent from Spain, it’s Constitution was explicitly anti-Catholic. The 1917 Consititution was even more so, and Catholic priests were forced to “go underground” or be murdered. (which many were) U.S. Americans seem not to realize this.
I agree.
“Pssst, it’s the MEXICAN version of playboy.”
Pssst, AMERICA is a continent that INCLUDES MEXICO!
You must remember to distinguish between “America” and the U.S.A. :)
Then make your point about MEXICO, and not America, so you don’t sound so ignorant.
Fair dinkum, point taken. Generally, especially here in the USA, America is taken to mean the USA. “God Bless America” isn’t taken to mean Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Canada, USA, etc...
Thank you both.
True, and generally I will not ever argue the point when a discussion is clearly within the context of the USA, and without need of declaration. But in this case people need be reminded, since the issue is continental by accident and national by point of fact. Anyway, we digress... back to the subject at hand.
Where is that in the Bible? Mary "pre-redeemed"?! Not there. The earliest church fathers didn't teach that either.
That sounds like something an islamo would say.
Heavenly boobies?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.