Poster of naked Virgin Mary sparks unholy row

[Sliver]

Personally, I'm fine with ridicule. If somebody believes something super far-fetched and they won't listen to reason, I believe they should be mocked. That is mock-worthy behaviour.

[Calgaryborn]

The idea that God had sex with Mary is offensive to me. It was a virgin birth. God spoke the worlds into existence. I'm sure he can impregnate a women without using a penis.

The fact that Joseph eventually had sex with Mary and they produced children is only a problem for Catholics and possibly Greek Orthodox. The books of James and Jude are thought to be written by Jesus' half brothers.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The idea that God had sex with Mary is offensive to me.

The idea offends you? I can see disagreeing with its sentiment but being offended by an idea that is so abstract is kind of silly if you ask me.

[Playfair]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I can really understand why hard core Christians would be absolutely enraged. The Virgin Mary is hugely sacred to them, and the depiction of her like this would be hugely upsetting.

That would depend on where you are coming from. If you were a Catholic, that would be a very disrespectful sign as the Virgin Mary is sacred to them.

I am just a believer in the Way, I desire not to be religious like that but to be in a relationship with a Holy God.

For me, while the sign kind of misses the whole point of virgin birth and implies God had intercourse, it is not that big a deal. It is just the world that doesn't understand spiritual things. I don't expect anyone to understand, or even like that statement, but from where i am at that is what I see.

It is not life and death. It is just a poster. The real issue is a heart issue, not a sign issue. The sign means nothing and will pass away. Life in Christ is eternal.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Your quote was fine till you said ridiculed. Anyone who uses ridicule when dealing with what people believe has lost my respect.

Which is your response and the consequence of them using ridicule.

I don't think I said that ridicule was the best way to go about things, or even appropriate, but it's still a permissible response.

Ridicule is still free speech, however useful or useless it may be.

Originally Posted by Knalus

What, people are allowed to ridicule, but aren't allowed to be outraged? Being able to mock an opinion is ok, as long as those who disagree with you shut up?

I don't think I said anything even remotely close to this. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Of course people can be outraged at what is being said, I never said that they couldn't be. What they're not allowed is to be outraged at the ability for people to say it.

"That's a terrible sign, I think that's very disrespectful to my beliefs." - Appropriate response.

"That's a terrible sign, I am going to deface it." - Inappropriate response.

"That's a terrible sign, they should not be allowed to put it up." - Inappropriate response.

Originally Posted by Knalus

If someone is going to mock someone else, they should be darn well ready to face the consequences of that mockery - which would be outrage.

Of course. And those outraged have to face the consequences of their outrage, and those responding to the outrage have to face... etc etc.

Nothing I said implies otherwise.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Resorting to mockery to deal with arguments (or worse yet, to start them) leads to polarization and is one of the biggest problems with western society nowadays. Mockery shuts down proper discussion and argument, and in no way enhances it.

For the most part I agree, though not totally.. Shame does play a role in society and I think is another thing that's become a lost; so many people seem to have no shame. People should feel shame because they don't want the derision or ridicule of their peers, if there's no risk of ridicule, there's no shame.

Active mockery I agree is mostly useless, though again in some cases if one has refused honest engagement and rejected all reasonable action there is nothing left but ridicule. A good example would be that "God Hates Fags" family.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The idea that God had sex with Mary is offensive to me. It was a virgin birth. God spoke the worlds into existence. I'm sure he can impregnate a women without using a penis.

lololololololololololol

Virgins can't get pregnant, my friend.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Playfair

For me, while the sign kind of misses the whole point of virgin birth and implies God had intercourse, it is not that big a deal.

I think you are missing the point of the sign. The sign isn't saying God had intercourse with Mary, it's saying the whole idea of a virgin birth is silly, that the whole idea of a literal reading of scripture (including a specific translation which says Mary was a virgin) as absolute truth is silly.

From the article

Cardy said the billboard was meant to challenge literal interpretations of the Bible.

Originally Posted by Playfair

It is just the world that doesn't understand spiritual things. I don't expect anyone to understand, or even like that statement, but from where i am at that is what I see.

Interesting, but not relevant here. The billboard was put up by Christians, who presumably would "understand spiritual things".

[stuck_in_chuk]

Most "hard-core Christians" would not be terribly offended by the depiction of Mary and Joseph in bed together, although they may find it to be in bad taste. As Calgaryborn has pointed out, the concept of Mary being a perpetual virgin is something unique to Catholicism. This poster was aimed at annoying the Catholics, if you ask me.

Outside of desecrating a communion wafer, I can't think of a better way to accomplish that objective.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think I said that ridicule was the best way to go about things, or even appropriate, but it's still a permissible response.

Ridicule is still free speech, however useful or useless it may be.

I'm glad we agree on that. However, if we're going to split hairs here...

Originally Posted by photon

Of course people can be outraged at what is being said, I never said that they couldn't be. What they're not allowed is to be outraged at the ability for people to say it.

Actually, they are allowed to. They're allowed to be alot of things. We both (I assume) agree that they probably shouldn't, but they are as allowed to be outraged at the ability of people to be allowed to say it as they are to do anything else. The law limits their actions, not their beliefs. Thank God.

Originally Posted by photon

"That's a terrible sign, I think that's very disrespectful to my beliefs." - Appropriate response.

"That's a terrible sign, I am going to deface it." - Inappropriate response.

"That's a terrible sign, they should not be allowed to put it up." - Inappropriate response.

I believe we agree on this point.

Originally Posted by photon

Of course. And those outraged have to face the consequences of their outrage, and those responding to the outrage have to face... etc etc.

Nothing I said implies otherwise.

Pardon, but it did. You did not outright say it, but that's the definition of implied - you didn't need to say it outright. It might not have been what you meant to say, but considering the context, it really was what your comment came off as implying.

Originally Posted by photon

For the most part I agree, though not totally.. Shame does play a role in society and I think is another thing that's become a lost; so many people seem to have no shame. People should feel shame because they don't want the derision or ridicule of their peers, if there's no risk of ridicule, there's no shame.

Active mockery I agree is mostly useless, though again in some cases if one has refused honest engagement and rejected all reasonable action there is nothing left but ridicule. A good example would be that "God Hates Fags" family.

When used properly, perhaps it could be used well. Jon Stewart comes to mind. However, I think the internet is proof that it is rarely, if ever, used properly - especially on message boards.

[Dion]

nm

[calgaryrocks]

Originally Posted by Sliver

lololololololololololol

Virgins can't get pregnant, my friend.

it was birth without having had sex. God can do anything, in this case he made her pregnant, but didn't need to have sex with her (kinda not possible when God isn't a physical person)

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by photon

It wasn't up for very long until someone defaced it:

That's worse.
Insinuates to me that she was a brown paper bag over the head job.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Sliver

lololololololololololol

Virgins can't get pregnant, my friend.

It's a scientific fact, they actually can.

[nik-]

At least they're not trying to kill the people that put up the sign.

[Playfair]

Well, that still speaks to the fact that whoever put up the billboard, no matter what they may claim to believe, do not have a good understanding of spiritual things. I can say I am a hockey player, that doesn't make me Iginla.

That is not the greatest comparison, but one who truly understands spiritual things, who is born into Christ - indwelt with the Holy Spirit - would not make that kind of a statement on a poster, or anything else for that matter.

Fair enough. If that is what they choose to do then that is fine. But that is what the Truth is. You can't call yourself a Christian and not believe in the virgin birth. The two don't go together.

Jesus was born with a sin nature, like all of us, that he inherited through Mary. He was sinless because He was the Son of God and though tempted like all of us are, He never sinned. If He didn't go to the cross and He choose not to die, He would still be walking amongst us. He would not have tasted death.

But He choose to die for us. Now you can say that it is all hogwash, that you don't believe it, but that doesn't take away from the fact that is what the Bible says, and that is what true believers in Christ would know. It is very basic theology, much like Jesus rising from the dead. If you don't believe that, you are not a true believer, you are a pretender. You may have some of the same beliefs, but Holy Spirit does not indwell you. You are not born again into Christ.

Sorry for the longer post, but that is why I spoke about spiritual things. You can say everything, look the part, and have no idea what you are doing without His Spirit. You are not telling the truth, but rather acting a part. I will stop now! LOL!

[photon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Actually, they are allowed to. They're allowed to be alot of things. We both (I assume) agree that they probably shouldn't, but they are as allowed to be outraged at the ability of people to be allowed to say it as they are to do anything else. The law limits their actions, not their beliefs. Thank God.

You are right, people can be outraged at free speech, I guess I should have said that they aren't allowed to actually limit free speech.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Pardon, but it did. You did not outright say it, but that's the definition of implied - you didn't need to say it outright. It might not have been what you meant to say, but considering the context, it really was what your comment came off as implying.

I didn't think so, and that definitely wasn't my intent, I thought my rhetorical comment to the defacer clarified that it was about what was allowed to be said (since he was limiting what was allowed to be said).

Originally Posted by Knalus

When used properly, perhaps it could be used well. Jon Stewart comes to mind. However, I think the internet is proof that it is rarely, if ever, used properly - especially on message boards.

Heh, anything that involves input from random people is ever used properly, especially on the Internet.

[Knalus]

I like arguing with you, Photon. More than some, I'd have to say.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by photon

It wasn't up for very long until someone defaced it:

...or a Bethlehem Steamer.

[Playfair]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The idea that God had sex with Mary is offensive to me. It was a virgin birth. God spoke the worlds into existence. I'm sure he can impregnate a women without using a penis.

The fact that Joseph eventually had sex with Mary and they produced children is only a problem for Catholics and possibly Greek Orthodox. The books of James and Jude are thought to be written by Jesus' half brothers.

If we said that the Canucks were better then the Flames, then people would be offended by that here. Maybe that is a poor example, but it wouldn't take long for the fire to reign down.

I respect that the poster offends you. The misinterpretation of it bothers me, in that they are saying God and Mary had sex. That is wrong. Even if it was meant as a way not to take the Bible literally, it is far off the truth. The truth is that Jesus was born of a virgin. We may not agree with the role of Mary, I see her as a sinner like me, but we both hold to the truth that Jesus was born of a virgin.

I apologize for not seeing your post earlier, I was in a hurry when I wrote the last one.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The idea that God had sex with Mary is offensive to me. It was a virgin birth. God spoke the worlds into existence. I'm sure he can impregnate a women without using a penis.

The fact that Joseph eventually had sex with Mary and they produced children is only a problem for Catholics and possibly Greek Orthodox. The books of James and Jude are thought to be written by Jesus' half brothers.

1. That must have been the most painful birth in history.

2. Mary and Joseph were married, right? For how long?

3. What guy doesn't plow his wife on their wedding night?