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!
In an amazing post, you post a lot of nothing, and disprove not a thing I said. And that’s the way it will probably remain.
“You think your own interpretation is the only one possible?”
Offer a better interpretation.
“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?”
Offer a better interpretation. Is your whole post going to be like that? Hot air and nothing else?
Then you stunningly failed and posted this:
“”Our agenda is to get people to think about Christmas a little more deeply.””
That would be an explanation for the creation of the poster - and not necessarily a truthful one (these are liberals; why believe them?) - and NOT an interpretation of the image ON THE POSTER.
“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;”
I was correct then and am still correct now. Logically the image has only one correct interpretation. You have yet to post a single thing that says otherwise. You apparently even confuse the stated reason for the poster with the correct interpretation of the image on it as if the two were automatically synonymous.
“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!”
Wow. You couldn’t be more wrong. I said nothing about the “intent” of the poster in itself. I spoke only about the correct interpretation of the image on the poster. The two are not the same thing. In my workplace we produce religious posters every few weeks. We understand that the intent of the poster is one thing and the obvious interpretation of the image on the poster is another. If, for instance, we produce a poster advertizing a speaker’s talk about Advent that is the intent of the poster - to get people to come to the talk. The image, however, will be to remind them about their connection to Christ through His coming into the world in a humble way and to link that to the value of the talk. The image and the intent can be two different things. I do this as part of my living - and I’m quite good at it too.
“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 said that the image they were using denies the Annunciation. That’s what the image does. Notice how you don’t even remotely discuss the actual content of the image? Yeah. Try it. Actually discuss that image and try to see how on earth it could possibly make people just think of Christmas. Christmas is the celebration of Christ’s birth. Where is that in the image? It isn’t there. There is no Christ, no manger, no stable, no Wise Men, no nativity scene at all, and no words at all about Christ, the nativity or anything else. It cannot be about Christmas because it is about a pregnancy test, not a birth.
“I understood the general thrust of the message— but you didn’t.”
No, actually I understood it perfectly - especially when I saw who produced it. Remember, it can’t be about Christmas, because it is about a pregnancy test and not Christ’s birth.
“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!”
Your answer will undoubtedly fail to actually discuss the image - just as you have failed to discuss it thus far. And since you cannot see that the planned or stated “intent” of a poster can differ from the actually obvious meaning of the image, you will simply continue to fail at this again and again. Also, and this has to be said, why would you EVER believe what a liberal says when he tells you what their “intent” was when they have deliberately lied for decades?
If you keep believing what liberals are honest, then you will continue to fail.