Catholics protest Satanic billboard (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10773887)
St Matthew-in-the-City is really awesome with regards to their billboards, just a pity other religious people can't be so awesome.
QuoteTwo years ago, it displayed a poster showing Mary and Joseph in bed with the caption: "Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow."
Remember that one ;D
So, how much fines are these vandals going to pay?
QuoteThere's only one faith - The Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith - because we go right back in our papal line to Christ.
I hadn't realised Christ was the first pope.
He was Pope Jesus Christ the first.
I don't think he made it to sainthood though.
So they protest a picture on a billboard but protect child-boffing priests from the law. Business as usual, then...
>:(
Quote from: squidfetish on December 18, 2011, 10:16:38 AM
So they protest a picture on a billboard but protect child-boffing priests from the law. Business as usual, then...
>:(
Do you really think the people protesting here actually support child abuse or the protection of child abusing priests?
I hate to admit it, but if I had seen that billboard, I would've had no idea what it was trying to say. I'm not even sure if I would've known that was Mary, but I definitely wouldn't have known the thing in her hand was a pregnancy test. :-[
Quote from: Tank on December 18, 2011, 10:50:01 AM
Quote from: squidfetish on December 18, 2011, 10:16:38 AM
So they protest a picture on a billboard but protect child-boffing priests from the law. Business as usual, then...
>:(
Do you really think the people protesting here actually support child abuse or the protection of child abusing priests?
Not necessarily supporting it, but I'd certainly be interested to know if any of them have actively denounced it or whether they have shied away from it for fear of rocking the boat or making the church look bad.
Quote from: squidfetish on December 18, 2011, 12:46:54 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 18, 2011, 10:50:01 AM
Quote from: squidfetish on December 18, 2011, 10:16:38 AM
So they protest a picture on a billboard but protect child-boffing priests from the law. Business as usual, then...
>:(
Do you really think the people protesting here actually support child abuse or the protection of child abusing priests?
Not necessarily supporting it, but I'd certainly be interested to know if any of them have actively denounced it or whether they have shied away from it for fear of rocking the boat or making the church look bad.
I see what you are saying. I personally don't feel comfortable demonizing a group of people based on the actions of a few, and the media have definitely done this to Catholic priests. Extending the "If one does it, all are capable of it." argument means the women could quite reasonably argue that men should not be let out on their own except under female supervision as 99.99% of rapes are carried out by solitary males. When will the first Catholic priest get beaten up/to-death because he wears a cassock?
$0.02
I don't understand why this poster would be that upsetting? I mean, I guess it's not all that "serious", but it is supporting the idea that there was a Mary and she got pregnant. Isn't that a good thing from a Catholic perspective?
Or maybe some Catholics are just uncomfortable with viewing her as a real woman and not some kind of mystical, high on a pedestal, arch-type. Even when I was Catholic, I thought they way the church fetishized Mary was kinda weird.
I agree with you DJ. Some people just like to be offended.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 18, 2011, 03:16:41 PM
I don't understand why this poster would be that upsetting? I mean, I guess it's not all that "serious", but it is supporting the idea that there was a Mary and she got pregnant. Isn't that a good thing from a Catholic perspective?
Or maybe some Catholics are just uncomfortable with viewing her as a real woman and not some kind of mystical, high on a pedestal, arch-type. Even when I was Catholic, I thought they way the church fetishized Mary was kinda weird.
Catholics regard Mary very highly. Her and JC are the only people born without the stain of sin. lol
Although being a woman she is unsuitable to be ordained or to have a leadership role over any man within the church. When put in her place she is quite the Mother of humanity.
I guess they are upset that she is shocked at being pregnant. They assume she would have been extremely happy to bear gods little baby incarnation especially since an Angel told her this would happen. Happy, glorious, joy-joy times, not shock horror, OMG what do I do? Fiance's gonna be pissed especially considering I've never f$5ked him!
Quote from: Tank on December 18, 2011, 02:54:23 PM
I see what you are saying. I personally don't feel comfortable demonizing a group of people based on the actions of a few, and the media have definitely done this to Catholic priests.
It was an off the cuff lulz comment directed at the catholic church's reluctance to engage with what has been a debilitating problem for them and the victims and it seemed to me to be recognizable as such, but maybe I'm wrong. It was never intended to be offered up for rigorous exegesis.
I'm no great fan of the media but their uncovering of the scandal has certainly forced the church to address a serious problem which they have been refusing to deal with for decades. I think that is a good thing.
Quote from: Tank on December 18, 2011, 02:54:23 PM
Extending the "If one does it, all are capable of it." argument means the women could quite reasonably argue that men should not be let out on their own except under female supervision as 99.99% of rapes are carried out by solitary males. When will the first Catholic priest get beaten up/to-death because he wears a cassock?
$0.02
That seems to be over-egging the whole thing a little. It is certainly possible, but unlikely. I agree with much of what you say in principle. but I have yet to meet anyone who would tar every member of a social group with the same brush because of the actions of a few. Mind you, I do remember a story in the news about a pediatrician who had his house burned down by some retard who couldn't tell the difference between pediatrician and paedophile, so hey...
Quote from: squidfetish on December 18, 2011, 06:29:03 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 18, 2011, 02:54:23 PM
I see what you are saying. I personally don't feel comfortable demonizing a group of people based on the actions of a few, and the media have definitely done this to Catholic priests.
It was an off the cuff lulz comment directed at the catholic church's reluctance to engage with what has been a debilitating problem for them and the victims and it seemed to me to be recognizable as such, but maybe I'm wrong. It was never intended to be offered up for rigorous exegesis.
I'm no great fan of the media but their uncovering of the scandal has certainly forced the church to address a serious problem which they have been refusing to deal with for decades. I think that is a good thing.
Quote from: Tank on December 18, 2011, 02:54:23 PM
Extending the "If one does it, all are capable of it." argument means the women could quite reasonably argue that men should not be let out on their own except under female supervision as 99.99% of rapes are carried out by solitary males. When will the first Catholic priest get beaten up/to-death because he wears a cassock?
$0.02
That seems to be over-egging the whole thing a little. It is certainly possible, but unlikely. I agree with much of what you say in principle. but I have yet to meet anyone who would tar every member of a social group with the same brush because of the actions of a few. Mind you, I do remember a story in the news about a pediatrician who had his house burned down by some retard who couldn't tell the difference between pediatrician and paedophile, so hey...
Definitly over-egging to make the point un-ambiguious ;D
Well, if the Catholics are upset about that Billboard, they certainly won't like my re-writing Luke 1:39-40 (but is sure does bring a quick close to the New Testament, huh?)
Luke 1:26: And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Luke 1:27: To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Luke 1:28: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Luke 1:29: And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
Luke 1:30: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
Luke 1:31: And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luke 1:32: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Luke 1:33: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Luke 1:34: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Luke 1:35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:36: And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Luke 1:37: For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Luke 1:38: And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
Luke 1:39: And Mary arose in those days, and hustled down to the Wal-Mart Pharmacy and spent a few shekels for Ella (patented trade mark of the Watson Pharmaceuticals Corporation) and stopped that $hit immediately.
Luke 1:40: The End.
Quote from: Tank on December 18, 2011, 07:29:04 PM
Definitly over-egging to make the point un-ambiguious ;D
Fair call, squire. :)