Do you find this billboard offensive?
Asked by
Mat74UK (
4662
)
December 17th, 2009
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
65 Answers
hahahahahha. I think that’s hilarious actually.
But then, I’m not Christian. So my opinion probably isn’t especially relevant.
After having gone to New Zealand and seeing their average billboards, this is tame.
In other news: I think it’s funny as all hell.
Bahahahahahahahahaha!
No, I think it’s excellent!!
And anyway…. isn’t there a Church out there which preaches that God and Mary literally had sex?
It’s funny, but gratuitously offensive. I’m not Christian, but I’m still put off by this kind of mockery.
@Harp how can it be mockery when it was put out by a Church, in order to stimulate debate?
Awesome. Anything that offends the catholic church is OK in my book—even a piece of crap book like The DaVinci Code.
No, not really. I consider myself a Christian, but that doesn’t mean I can’t have a sense of humor. Besides…if people believe what they claim to…it’s true. Yes?
@randomness Yea…I think it was the Mormons.
To answer the question, I’m Christian so forgive me if I sound biased.
It is a little funny to me, but I’ve got a few points.
A. We all admit it is offensive, and it is especially to Christians like me (Even though I am quite liberal and don’t mind very much when it comes to matters most Christians shun like homosexuality)
B. There are innocents out there…seriously, as if porn wasn’t bad enough.
C. If they wished to challenge Christian stereotype…they certainly didn’t have to go by this front. Yes, historically, people like the Catholics have a lot to answer for…but that does not mean that people have any right to do this.
Ok, that was definitely biased…let me try again.
A. It was offensive, even if it was used to stimulate debate. From what the article suggests, it has done nothing but given the church an extra 20 emails.
B. Repeat point B above.
C. If you want to stimulate debate, do it some other way. I mean, the billboard got defaced within hours. Its stimulating something alright, and its not debate.
No. It’s called freedom of speech. We should all feel free to disagree with, and even poke fun at the beliefs or habits of others, and do so publicly. This means that any one or any belief should be a legitimate target, including but not limited to homosexuality, Judaism, and Muslims.
Nah…it’s just artwork (and not very good artwork). Some artwork is offensive to some. Just look the other way if it’s not your thing.
I think it’s funny!! There is no reason to be offended by this kind of thing, people who are, are just uptight in my opinion. Even as a Catholic, I find this funny.
Not particularly.
Not particularly imaginative either, imho.
I’m glad you’re all finding it amusing! I do too.
As I am new to this site I’m just trying to find my feet without offending anyone!
Non-Christian here. I also find it both funny and offensive. If that church wanted to stimulate debate, they could have been classier about it.
But, as Darwin would say, ads are meant to be remembered. This one is certainly memorable. Not that that’s a point in its favor or anything, but perhaps I’m wrong and they couldn’t have been classier about it – without attracting far fewer people to the issue.
Which, I think, may say something about the state of our ability to politely and rationally disagree with one another.
I don’t find it offensive but I also think I am seriously missing the point. I just don’t get it! It is supposed to challenge Christian stereotypes ut I fail to see how. Please can someone break this down into an idiots guide for me!
No, I don’t. But I don’t base my world view or my morals on a fictional account of immaculate conception either. Can someone please tell me why it is seemingly okay to clutter the byways of America with billboards containing various fundamentalist religious messages about their preferred deity or lifestyle choice while berating differing lifestyle choices, but not okay for others to do the same? It reeks of hypocrisy. I absolutely love the billboard. By the way, the billboard actually pictures Joseph and Mary, not Jesus and Mary as indicated in your question..
Nah, that’s just good humor to me.
It was used to stimulate debate..not to be offensive. We as Christians sometimes like to be too overprotective
Yes, and due to freedom of speech it should be allowed.
Nah, if I saw that while driving I would probably wreck my car from laughing so hard…
i find people that find that type of stuff offensive ,, are offensive
I have seen worse ridiculing Christ these days, but I can understand if some christians are offended by it.
I find it a mockery, to the Christian faith. I don’t see, or read anything humorous about it. The two cartoon characters laying in bed isn’t offensive, it’s the words written above them, that I see as mockery. I mock no ones faith, not even when I am trying to convey what I believe in.
I don’t understand, why people can’t have a difference of opinion, without mocking and being offensive.
Why does Mary have a towel on her head?
Thank you. I wouldn’t have seen that, I suppose, if not for your Q. I think it’s funny as hell—and entirely appropriate for the intended purpose. Personally (and speaking not as a Christian), I find the whole myth of a (literal) virgin birth thing to be objectively stupid.
The next time a pretend Messiah arrives, I presume there will be some DNA testing involved…
@smashbox Considering that it was commissioned by a Christian church and its pastor, you should have no real objection on the grounds of its mocking the faith. You may not like it, and I think that’s understandable, but the article quotes the pastor on his intent, and I can’t argue with that.
I also, don’t believe there was a Mary or Jesus, but it’s not for me to mock someone who does believe there was. I have no objections, never said I did. A question was asked, and I gave my opinion.
@Leanne1986 Though I’m not a Christian, I was raised that way, and I think I understand the point here. The debate to be raised was “Is this importance to us [Christians] that we really believe in the literalness of an immaculate conception / virgin birth, or is Jesus’ message of love somewhat more allegorical?” Or something like that.
If you remove the literalness from religion.
Eventually you are back to worshiping rocks and trees.
I don’t think we can say that because it came from one sect of Christianity it can’t be mockery. Clearly it’s a parody of another form of Christian belief. The whole “debate” line is disingenuous; what point does it make in the absence of the pastor’s explanation? It simply ridicules.
I’m a Christian, but, I do find it funny.
I just do not get it. Rather boring and uneventful message.
I am more interested in cars with advertisement on it. (another post)
IMHO, it was meant to stir debate about the patriarchy and mysoginy inherent in a 2,000 y.o. religion, in which daughters were thrown to a crowd of men hungry for rape, men begat sons without mention of mothers and daughters, and a male God impregnates human women. It’s time people looked beyond their ability to be easily offended so that they might actually think, question, and be open to discussion.
In my experience, the surest way to shut down open discussion is to ridicule the other side.
@Harp I don’t see it as mockery of “another form of Christian belief”, but I do understand that Catholics revere the Virgin Mary more than most others. Even so, “immaculate conception” and “virgin birth” are fundamental tenets of the entire Christian faith. And I’ve never seen a satisfying explanation of the faith that Joseph must have had in his wife, to believe that she (alone out of every woman that had ever lived until that point—and to this point) was able to give birth to an infant—with no male sex partner. His faith is extraordinary.
And was she a virgin throughout their marriage, forever, before and after the birth of the Child? It’s a thought-provoking billboard.
I find it meh. It’s not really funny to me, nor is it offensive. The artwork is so-so and the message is a bit diluted to truly spark discussion, in my opinion.
@CyanoticWasp I thought Jesus had a slew of siblings, which doesn’t take away from everything else you wrote. But I think I remember James, the brother of Jesus, and…....??, the rest are lost in the residue of time:)
lol thats awesome best christian billboard ever
@CyanoticWasp “‘immaculate conception’ and ‘virgin birth’ are fundamental tenets of the entire Christian faith”
There really isn’t much in the way of doctrine that’s universal across all churches calling themselves “Christian”. The virgin birth comes close, but even aside from the church that sponsored this billboard, it’s easy to find exceptions.
No, it is not offensive, unless you hold your religious beliefs to be above scrutiny.
@CyanoticWasp Thank you, that makes sense to me.
As someone who does believe in Christ but not necessarily the whole “imaculate conception” thing I think it is good to see a church that isn’t taking itself to seriously. It doesn’t offend me at all because I don’t believe that the Bible is meant to be taking literally.
Yes, it is offensive. One of the meanings of the word offensive is attack.
It’s funny if you believe the story of Joseph and Mary living as sexually active husband and wife. I think being on a billboard gives a lot parents the task of explaining to kids the Christian story which increases the odds of new Christian interest so this is successful propoganda by whatever church. I remember as a kid being told Joseph was basically some nice guy who saved Mary’s reputation from the shame of pregnancy out of wedlock but no one ever said they lived on as a regular couple. The Christ child was born, Mary was elevated to divinity and Joseph remained the extra figure in the nativity who stands arounds with the animals.
@Dracool I think you’re right. I had forgotten entirely about Jesus’ siblings (or half-siblings?).
@Harp Interesting link. Thank you. Not that I’m ever going to be accused of being a scholar of Christianity—or even of this one link in any depth (and certainly not a Christian)—but I guess there were some things that I “assumed” about “the religion as a whole” that didn’t take into account differences between sects. This was somewhat eye-opening.
@Leanne1986 Thanks.
YES!! Wait….let me quit laughing so I can sound like I mean it!!!
After looking at the billboard I can’t help but wonder what sort of beliefs a person would have to hold for this to offend them. It doesn’t undermine the supposed miracle of virgin birth. It doesn’t criticise God, Jesus or religion. All it does is suggest that a marriage may have had sexual issues.
What’s so revolutionary about that? The only thing I can come up with is that these people are so repulsed and disgusted by the natural act of sex that any association of Mary with it as seen as unforgivable slur against her. Truly, these are the people for whom there are only virgins and whores.
Plus it is a documented fact that Jesus had a brother.
i always wondered if mary, uh, “finished” when she a god hooked up.
i thought mary had a little lamb ?
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH joseph could at least show mary some affection after getting her in the sack, damn. he seems so distant!
lol… cant even have a smoke after ... i heard that’s a sin ;-)
meh. advertisement fail.
They are trying to be edgy/provocative/offensive with Christianity? It’s not axe body spray; it’s a mismatch of product and advertisement. Are they trying to present themselves as the cool Christian church that isn’t like the other rigid, uncool Christian churches? It reminds me of the kid in high school that tried too hard to be one of the in crowd. They ultimately wouldn’t respect him, but laughed at his antics.
What is the message here? I can’t think of any Christian religion, offhand, that believes that God literally had sex with Mary (nope, not even the mormons). Does this church believe that? Are they poking fun at themselves? Is there a particular church that they are attacking? It isn’t clarifying doctrine; it is confusing.
I can’t see how this is about encouraging debate. It is designed to evoke an emotional response. It isn’t thought-provoking; it’s inflammatory.
@phoenyx I disagree. I’ve seen my fair share of churches trying to make themselves “cool”, “edgy”, or my favorite “in touch with youth culture”.
Things like having “fall festivals” so kids can be forced into a “satan-free” substitute on Halloween are pretty much the lamest version of Halloween possible since it invariably means being at church on Halloween. Hell Houses are certainly edgier (and I’d assume more entertaining) but they certainly don’t encourage discourse. That’s just a way of making Halloween acceptable by dramatizing the hell they believe in and making sure you know just what you’re doing to get there (having sex before marriage, drinking from your parents liquor cabinet, being gay…)
I’ve always found youth groups, youth pastors, and Christian rock some combination of hopelessly cheesy and somewhat creepy, but never edgy. Thankfully the one pluses of going to a small church was they were too small to keep their youth group going. Thank god.
While I don’t really see this billboard as edgy I don’t find it at all cheesy. Nor does it seem like a desperate attempt to get attention. Probably because where most church attempts at humor or creativity come off very badly this one is clever, unique and well executed. A far cry from what you usually see from churches.
Whether or not this will start the debate they claim was intended I don’t know. It seems like the people that would be the other side are more interested in vandalism than discourse.
I think it’s funny. Then again I’ve always had a theory about the Immaculate Conception. I imagine a conversation between Mary and Joseph something like this:
Mary (sobbing and panicking): Joseph, I’m pregnant!!! And we’re not married yet! I’ll get stoned to death, what are we going to do????
Joseph (puts arms round her and smiles): Don’t worry, love. I’ve got this brilliant idea…
@downtide It sounds like Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow playing Joseph in your scene.
I personally prefer the variant where Joseph manages to cuckold God into thinking Jesus was his. Although it isn’t much of a cuckold since God didn’t bother to take a active role in raising Jesus. Plus that would make it even worse for Jesus in the end.
@fundevogel Johnny Depp doing that role would be perfect. :-D
@fundevogel
There is a difference, though. In your examples, the churches are trying to promote their values in an appealing way. In this billboard, fundamental Christian values (like respect for God) are being sacrificed for a cheap laugh.
“Edgy” depends on where you define your edge. To you, showing major religious figures post-sex, and treating God so casually, probably isn’t a big deal; I grimaced.
@phoenyx I don’t see how Joseph coming up short when measured against God is disrespectful to God. The whole things kinda of rediculous anyways. I don’t think any one would seriously suggest immaculate conception could be sexually satisfying in the first place. I would be royally pissed if it happened to me. All the hardship and work of motherhood without any of the fun leading up to it or even a real say in whether or not any of this was ok with me.
No wonder Christians are overwhelmingly against a woman’s right to choose. If Mary had a means of preventing pregnancy or terminating an unwanted one she may have never been the Holy Mother of God and the world would still be doomed all for the sake of one woman’s insistence that someone else couldn’t choose her future and determine what was right for her body. Personal freedoms sure are selfish.
This billboard isn’t even remotely offensive compared to what is suggested in the Bible.
Wasn’t Mary something like 16 at the time? I’d say that was pervy on God’s part, but he probably had to go young since all the adult women would have already been married off and deflowered. That apparently made them dirty and sinful and not fit to bring a holy child into the world. Nope. This wasn’t pervy so much as it was cruel.
You must have heard how sex is usually painful for women the first time? Perhaps you are a woman and have experience in these matters. If you did you would know that after having vaginal intercourse somethings get easier. One of those things is sex, another is the garden variety pap smear. My paps were so much less horrible after I had had sex. Before I had a pap that I hope is as close to rape as I ever come. Now imagine just skipping that first instance of vaginal intercourse, the one that makes the vagina more willing to pass things like speculums, penises and babies. Imagine popping her holy hymen with your lord and savior’s blessed head.
I’m sure that offends you. But what are you more concerned about? A supposedly all knowing, all powerful God’s reputation, or a young, inexperienced girl being told that she must sacrifice her body and her future for the aforementioned all powerful, all knowing God? I don’t think the all powerful guy needs your sympathy. It would appear that he has every means of taking care of himself and completing his plans, what with being all powerful and all knowing. I’m much more worried about the girl.
I find anything making fun of sex offensive, regardless if there’s religion involved or not.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
