Posted on 12/22/2011 7:41:33 AM PST by marshmallow
A few days ago a man referring to himself as a traditional Catholic decided to vandalise a controversial image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to the New Zealand Herald, Arthur Skinner from the Catholic Action Group in New Zealand damaged the poster as he deemed it to be so offensive that he felt a responsibility to remove it.
The image showing the Virgin Mary holding a pregnancy testing kit with a shocked expression on her face had been commissioned by an Auckland Anglican church, St Matthew-in-the-City. This parish is already known for displaying controversial (some would say blasphemous) quasi-religious images - a few years ago its billboard depicted an extremely distasteful image of St Joseph and Our Lady in bed after sex (click here and scroll down to view - but be warned).
Whilst reacting to this story, many anti-Catholic commentators in New Zealand have not only criticised Skinner, but have also used this opportunity to take a dig at the Catholic Church as a whole. According to Richard Boock, who appears to be an embittered lapsed Catholic, Arthur Skinner's act of vandalism is further proof of Catholicism's "bullying" and "intolerant" attitude. Those who bother to read Boock's article will find his self-righteousness particularly bizarre, especially seeing that he begins his piece - with no apparent sense of irony - by referring to Catholics as "Micks" (an offensive and derogatory term for the Irish).
The vandalising of this poster was also linked by Boock to the much exaggerated clerical abuse scandals. How both things are connected is beyond me. It might be something to do, though, with the fact that the Auckland Anglican church which displayed the offensive poster of Our Lady seems to be very pro-homosexual, whilst - according to a much touted.........
(Excerpt) Read more at areluctantsinner.blogspot.com ...
Alex, I hope you answer those questions I asked. Now that would be amazing.
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.
Inquisitional minds want to know.
I already assume you won’t answer them - because you can’t - but I think it is important to allow you to repeatedly fail to do what is so easy. It shows who you are at heart.
More "evidence" of Mary "worship".
It's just a matter of time before we get our Inquisitional hands on you, stretch you out on the rack to dry, so that you'll burn better. Your fate is sealed. God and the Angels are on our side!
A lot of nothing? Actually, I've shown proof that just about everything you've said, is wrong.
The creator of the billboard knew there would be people whom would be offended by it, such as yourself.
Others were prompted to think, such as the example of the woman I gave.
The pregnancy test indicator was showing positive, that she was pregnant. Now how in the world did that virgin get pregnant? It's a shocking, out of the ordinary thing when an actual virgin becomes pregnant. The test indicator was used to point towards the annunciation, to prompt viewers acquainted with the story to think about it, how it happened, what it means. Not to deny it.
You have it backwards, but that is due to your own pride and prejudices, regardless of how "expert" you think yourself to be in the promoting of religious imagery. In fact, I dare say the image was aimed towards those whom would take in superficially if at all, yet just another manger scene, such as imagery you describe yourself making.
The pregnancy test strip was used as a prop to get people to think on what Mary experienced, and that Christ's birth in itself was a miracle. It happened to a real woman, had real and actual consequences & personal meaning. First, for Mary, as she lived through the pregnancy (as foretold by the Angel, for those whom know the story) and the birth in due time.
The billboard was put up during the Christmas season, the time celebrated as his birth. Manger scenes? We've seen 'em by the hundreds. At Christmas time, the image was put up to get people to think about when Mary first knew --- that is was all real.
Now do you see?
As expected you failed.
The pregnancy test does not indicate the Annunciation, but denies it. After the Annunciation, no pregnancy test would make sense.
And again, you utterly failed to provide any evidence that the poster has anything to do with Christmas in itself. Remember, Mary is portrayed as pregnant. That is not the nativity of Christ. That would come 9 months later.
And you’re still believing liberals.
You will continue to fail to provide evidence for your claims. It is your way.
I’ve never been in the hole. I was right from the beginning and still am. That’s exactly why you can’t present evidence for your baseless claims.
You confuse the liberals’ stated intent with the actual image. You failed to provide evidence for your claim. You apparently don’t know the difference between the Annunciation and the Nativity.
You’re the one in the hole.
Check out Murph's links. They are a hoot, and you are the caped crusader. The hole is getting deeper. Every time this thread get's bumped, more will see it.
Hint: the answer is not "helicopter".
C’mon! Really?
We don't see Muslim blastphomy because to do so wouldn't mean a vandalised poster. It would mean having a head cut off.
C’mon! Really?
We don't see Muslim blasphemy because to do so wouldn't mean a vandalized poster. It would mean having a head cut off.
You wrote:
“Ok, you don’t see. It is clear that you insist upon it, even after I explained it, as you insisted I do.”
You did not explain it. You failed to account for how Mary would need a pregnancy test after being told by God that she would conceive.
“Check out Murph’s links. They are a hoot, and you are the caped crusader. The hole is getting deeper. Every time this thread get’s bumped, more will see it.”
I hope they do see it. What will they see?: Alex apparently avoiding answering questions and you failing? I have no problem with that.
“Hint: the answer is not “helicopter”.”
It might as well be in your world since you see Christmas in a poster without Christ, the Nativity, Wise Men, the manger, the Star of Bethlehem, the stable, etc. Imagine whatever you like. And keep buying the word of liberals too just as you admitted you do.
ROTFL!
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
The had pregnancy test kits back then? Who knew? Of course there were no test kits available then, that's the point! What else could the image point towards other than her having confirmation beyond any possible doubt, that it was in fact occurring, just as she was told?
After being told by God? She was told by an angel.
Did she have prior long experience hearing angels tell her a fantastical thing? Was there anything in the Jewish tradition that would strongly enough match up with what she was told, that she would not at all wonder?
Let me put it this way...
You have no solid justification for your position, based as it is on imagined offense to dogma which you and others read into the poster. But then again, the poster was meant to be suggestive...not explicitly a portrayal of events. That is were you err, sir; in taking your own subjective reaction to the image, as being the only possible interpretation of the meaning and intent of the thing.
And that's what we are talking about, the "offensive" poster, not some undefined theory of how Mary was beyond receiving confirmation of what she was told, what she experienced, that it was all very real.
When the Lord gives us message, a word, a teaching, a prophecy, whichever; He just about always give confirmation. He does not leave us twisting in the wind, wondering if we heard rightly, or it was just some dream, or worse --- that we were being mislead by some imposter spiritual agency. It's a-ok to seek confirmation, it's ok to ask for it, according to biblical record. Strong doubts of course, can have their own consequences, such as Elisabeth's husband, the priest, being struck dumb before and during the length of her pregnancy term with that child whom would be named John, as in John the Baptist.
Mary did, shortly after the spoken message from Gabriel, and the following visitation, the overshadowing of her by the Holy Ghost, receive confirmation from her great-aunt Elisabeth, in such a way as to strengthen her. Mary also later experienced the pregnancy in a very real, earthly, physical way, which in and of itself, cannot but help to have served as yet more confirmation. During the early stages of her pregnancy she had more than a friend in Elisabeth, she had protection & trust from about one of the only people on the face of the earth that could believe what was occurring with Mary, at that point.
The poster was intended to invoke deeper thought or contemplation upon what her pregnancy meant, for her first. From there, what one associates with the image is entirely subjective.
According to the comments of one Catholic witness, it succeeded in that. I had provided that info in post #45, but obviously you must have missed that? For you have claimed I have brought nothing to back my own claims.
Here it is again;
Sorry I am still trying to understand how that picture was blasphemous. I believe it shows Mary in a modern light and allows all of us to better appreciate the possible thoughts that could have entered her mind during Annunciation. It didn't change the story outcome nor assume she sinned. Pardon my Catholic immaturity I guess.
Honestly this picture was the catalyst of long reflection on Mary; I have a deeper more complex appreciation for the Holy Mother thanks to a different perspective.
One man's blasphemy in another man's spiritual lesson
Well, so much for it being a flat denial of the Annunciation. It wasn't with one Catholic commentator, nor was it with me.
The poster was designed to invoke thought on "how did she know?" It's target audience were the sort of folks whom would walk right on by yet another Nativity scene such as you yourself have described you were expert at making.
I have no confusion (as you have previously here alluded to) as to not knowing the difference between the visit of the angel, and the birth itself. I do wish you would drop that insulting "Protestants are ignorant" theme. But if your intent is to be insulting, to make it personal, than I'd have to day it's working. Excuse me in objecting to such as;
What an insulting tone. In my world? Oh, and I listen to liberals, too, rather than allow you to browbeat me into submission.
But hidden among the insults of your comments is yet more proof as it were, that the poster, put up during the Christmas season (not during Advent) was meant to prompt a viewer to think about, and reflect upon what Mary's pregnancy meant to her, and by normal extension, meant for us, with Mary's role being front & center.
It is only natural for one to have thought associations, one idea leading to other things one holds in memory.
It was that very tendency of the human mind to do so, which the sponsors of the poster intended to exploit by design. They knew too, that the "thought associations" among one group, would cause that group (of which you are a part?) to misunderstand their intended meaning, as a spokesman remarked.
It is no crime, no moral failing of my own that such natural thought processes occur in my own mind, searching for and finding meanings differing from those whom found offense. Nor is it a crime I and others had different inward response than some. The same thing, the subjectivity of the interpretation of possible meaning and intent of the image, what it was designed to provoke, does however point also to the prejudices and religious pride, if not bigotry, of those whom were offended.
Also once again, they claimed;
Luke 2
Yeah, she pondered upon it, and who wouldn't? "Pondered upon it" even after the child was born, after the shepherds showing up telling her about the angelic visitation and message they saw and heard... The Wise Men bringing gifts...the whole scene from start to finish, she "pondered", thought about, contemplated.
None of her later contemplations in any way suggest some shortage of faith on her account, if that is what you and others are insisting is part of the only possible interpretation of the poster(?), as in Mary either didn't hear from the angel, or believe what she heard, or lack of "faith", etc.
Nor does the poster explicitly suggest that the Annunciation did not occur, but that is what you are claiming is the only possible (and you put those two words in caps!) meaning.
I am trying here, to persuade all to look objectively, at what was designed to be at first, taken or understood subjectively.
This is only about the thoughts & ideas which an image provoked, and various reactions which followed. As such, it ethereal, and will pass. As will eventually, all the mis-communication, and bitterness.
You are still believing liberals, denying the import of the imagery of the pregnancy test, and ignoring the fact that there is no Christmas imagery in the poster.
Nothing you post changes any of that. You seem desperate to make a case, but still you ignore the most important issues. You have to.
Also, another poster’s views do not represent evidence for your own.
If you find any actual evidence for your assertions, let me know.
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.
