You wrote:
“You read “denial of the annunciation” into it.”
Nope. That’s what the pregnancy test image negates. There’s no reading into it. That’s the image.
“To my own eyes, the billboard is sacrilegious, quite crass at the least, but were they really trying to convey “denial of the annunciation”?”
That is what the image denies. Logically there is no other possibility. Why would a woman - any woman - need a pregnancy test if God just told he was was going to conceive?
“Why jump so hard at the WORST possible interpretation of what idea they were trying to convey? Ask yourself that.”
I am not jumping on the worst possible interpretation. That is THE ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation. Ask yourself why you realize the obvious meaning of the image. That’s a better question.
“Has there been any explanation from the creators of the offending work, just what they were trying to say? You’re probably the wrong guy to ask that question of, for you seem to have your own mind completely made up.”
And you don’t? You’re denying the only possible interpretation. You must have your mind made up as well. Go ahead and suggest an interpretation. How far-fetched will yours be? Feel free to continue to embarrass yourself denying the obvious reality.
Amazing.
You use the word "logically". Would it not be logical to go to the originators of the billboard to see what THEY were trying to say?
Here, I'll do it for you, from an article at New Zealand Herald;
The Christmas billboard was erected last week to raise discussion about Mary's circumstances coming into Christmas.
[snip]
In a statement St Matthew-in-the-City spokesman Reverend Clay Nelson said the Catholic Action Group had vandalised the billboard to gain publicity for Mr Skinner's point of view and to further his supposedly Catholic organisation's agenda.
"Our agenda is to get people to think about Christmas a little more deeply. Some people chose to be offended, but that's not our intent. But there are those who can get past that and reflect on Christmas," Mr Nelson said.
underlining for emphasis, my own.
The above indicates you have jumped to conclusions, and read into the sign what it is you claim to have seen as the only meaning, for you did say;
That is THE ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation.
Well, since the makers had an intent that differs from your own interpretation of what you think they meant, I guess that makes you wrong not only as to the billboard's meaning, but that there could be more than one possible meaning, too. That makes 2 strikes for you, in one pitch. Swing an uh miss! Swing an uh 'nother miss!
Why try to bully me into believing your own shallow, limited understanding and take of things, while also tossing off insult in my direction? As it turns out, it is not me who should be embarrassed, if anyone.
You said;
A better question you say?
I was under the impression that they were trying to "get people to think" about Christmas, just is explained above, which is why in a previous comment on this thread, I quoted a Catholic woman's comments concerning the matter. Obviously, SHE got the intended message. I guessed about the same. What church would be saying that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, whom is known as Mary? Well guess what? THEY WERE NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT. Period.
I understood the general thrust of the message-- but you didn't. I don't need ask myself "why"? I already know why. Must I need explain that, also? Don't ask, for I series/moose/cheese doubt you'd like the answer!