Christians outraged by poster showing Mary and Joseph after sex

Christians outraged by poster showing Mary and Joseph after sex Pic


A risque church billboard showing the Virgin Mary and Joseph in bed apparently after having disappointing sex has caused outrage among Christians in New Zealand.

The large poster depicts a dejected-looking Joseph lying next to Mary, whose eyes are turned heavenwards, under the words: "Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow."

Both figures, painted in classical fresco style, appear to be naked

As a result it was almost obliterated and the church, which describes itself as "progressive", is seeking a replacement.

Archdeacon Glynn Cardy said the billboard was intended to lampoon the literal interpretation of the Christmas conception story "and that somehow this male God impregnated Mary".

"What we're trying to do is to get people to think more about what Christmas is all about," he said.

"We actually think God is about the power of love as shown in Jesus, which is something quite different than a literal man up in the sky."

He said the church had asked an advertising agency to come up with ideas for the poster and the one they had chosen was not the most radical.

"One of the options we turned down had a sperm coming down with the words 'Joy to the World'," he said.

St Matthew's was inundated with angry phone calls and emails soon after the billboard appeared at a busy street corner on Thursday.

The poster also sparked a barrage of comments to radio stations and on internet websites.

Among leading critics was Lyndsay Freer, a spokesman for the Catholic Church, who said: "This is disrespectful and offensive to all Christians.

"It's flying in the face of our 2,000-year-old beliefs," she said.

its impossible to not offend some people and historicly christians are the most offendable, not saying every single one is exacly the same but the crazier ones go off on just about anyhting but for me... funnies thing I've seen all week

Poor Joseph
haha

That's awesome! That made me laugh.

That just made my day. Too funny.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is hillarious!!!

But of course, someone came in and covered the faces of J and M.

Y'know, when I clicked on the link I held out a fool's hope that the billboard might show Mary and Joseph as a happy couple with a healthy sex life, as a public service announcement about maintaining the love in a marriage or something like that.

Heh, that'll teach me.

Have you ever heard someone describe someone else as having "more money than God"? The billboard reminds me of that -- exalting God in terms that are expressions of *human* pride. It's like saying God has an IPhone, or God only wears 4-ply cashmere. Worldly garbage in a botched attempt to exalt the divine. And I'm not anti-sex -- I'm very pro-sex. But the billboard is not a celebration of healthy attitudes toward sex; it's about one-up-manship. It's a pretty crappy thing for "believers" to do to their higher power, not to mention to the human couple, or any human couple.

It's silly -- pardon my French, but it's a good example of misguided "believers" doing a lot of d**k-waving, literally and figuratively. They don't even realize that they're only waving their own.

I don't agree with the defacement. Discussion would have been the better action.

The churchy side of me says, "OMGosh! Are they serious? Even in the most progressive of churches that is still blasphamy on a stick. They are going to burn in hell."

The other side of me says, "That is super funny with really bad art work."

Perhaps if Mary took the veil off, she may have actually had more pleasure.

That is brilliant! Maybe Mary should have put the veil on Joseph instead?

Mr Damnation follows a historically Catholic Scottish football team and members of his forums were horrified.

JOY TO THE WORLD!!!! Somebody's finally got it right.

That made my day too.

I personally think that's hilarious, but yeah, I think my four year old niece could draw better than such so-called, artwork.

nsanelilmunky wrote:

GothicScrybe wrote:

I think my four year old niece could draw better than such so-called, artwork.

Painting in any style is difficult. Just because it's not your personal cup of tea doesn't mean it doesn't have talent.

The word "talent" is subjective and varies from person to person.

I have my own opinion, which is why I expressed it utilizing the words "I think" which denotes an opinion

Feel free to agree or disagree, but don't think that your opinion is more important than mine.

To do otherwise is sheer ignorance and simply contributes to the majority of high and mighty attitudes in the world today...rather than to the solution.

nsanelilmunky wrote:

GothicScrybe wrote:

nsanelilmunky wrote:

GothicScrybe wrote:

I think my four year old niece could draw better than such so-called, artwork.

Painting in any style is difficult. Just because it's not your personal cup of tea doesn't mean it doesn't have talent.

The word "talent" is subjective and varies from person to person.

I have my own opinion, which is why I expressed it utilizing the words "I think" which denotes an opinion

Feel free to agree or disagree, but don't think that your opinion is more important than mine.

To do otherwise is sheer ignorance and simply contributes to the majority of high and mighty attitudes in the world today...rather than to the solution.

I wasn't saying anything about one person's opinion being better than another. I was saying that painting is hard, this style does have talent, and being that painting is hard I was implying that I doubt that your 4 year old niece could really do it.

Being as my niece isn't the next Waterhouse (that I know of) my statement was a rhetorical one...and just furthered my point that "talent" is subjective.

I think it was done very well as far as the painting is concerened, but I think they should have saved that one for an abstinence campain if they were ever to have one.

Quote :

"What we're trying to do is to get people to think more about what Christmas is all about," he said. ~ Archdeacon Glynn Cardy said the billboard was intended to lampoon the literal interpretation of the Christmas conception story "and that somehow this male God impregnated Mary".

Your mentioning your 4 year old niece GothicScrybe fits in with my first thoughts on reading this article and seeing the painting. I wonder why they didn't chose a child's picture if they wanted to get people to think more about what Christmas is all about. Children in the church would have come up with more than just the presents they hoped to get.

And in my opinion Christmas is a very sad time. If you follow the christain reasons for it. It was a day of the birth of a living child whose sole purpose in being born was to someday suffer greatly for the sins of human kind so they might not.

It is creative though and in the artist's mind purhaps that's what chistmas means to them. I would have unfortunaly for the cheer of christmas, probably focused on the reason there is a "christ"mas in the first place.

*For christians that is great cheer, not having to to to hell for your sins, but be given the chance to be forgiven and go to heaven instead. People would have to read the whole story, his suffering and asking why he has been forsaken. Just sad.

cynfullov wrote:

I think it was done very well as far as the painting is concerened, but I think they should have saved that one for an abstinence campain if they were ever to have one.

Quote :

"What we're trying to do is to get people to think more about what Christmas is all about," he said. ~ Archdeacon Glynn Cardy said the billboard was intended to lampoon the literal interpretation of the Christmas conception story "and that somehow this male God impregnated Mary".

Your mentioning your 4 year old niece GothicScrybe fits in with my first thoughts on reading this article and seeing the painting. I wonder why they didn't chose a child's picture if they wanted to get people to think more about what Christmas is all about. Children in the church would have come up with more than just the presents they hoped to get.

And in my opinion Christmas is a very sad time. If you follow the christain reasons for it. It was a day of the birth of a living child whose sole purpose in being born was to someday suffer greatly for the sins of human kind so they might not.

It is creative though and in the artist's mind purhaps that's what chistmas means to them. I would have unfortunaly for the cheer of christmas, probably focused on the reason there is a "christ"mas in the first place.

Wow Cyn...what a well-expressed post!

You're right...for those that believe in a Christ-child it is sad to think what this holiday means.

You're also right about innocence...and what better way to show it than children.

I love a good, thinking post! Thanks for the brain food!

There are some discrepancies in regards to dates. I've either read and or heard that the calendar we go by now isn't at all like what would have been followed back then.

Do you think it might have to do with trying to match up a date with the north star being at it's hightest point in the sky?

GothicScrybe wrote:

Wow Cyn...what a well-expressed post!

You're right...for those that believe in a Christ-child it is sad to think what this holiday means.

You're also right about innocence...and what better way to show it than children.

I love a good, thinking post! Thanks for the brain food!

Thankyou