Now they’re complaing about a church!
December 17th, 2009 at 10:59 am by David FarrarI’m used to Family First complaining about all my favourite films, shows and TV shows. The intensity of their complaints about a show tends to be an excellent indicator of how much I will enjoy it.
But now they have complained about a church billboard!!
Family First NZ labelled the billboard to be put up by St Matthew-in-the-City Church as insensitive and objectionable to many people. The billboard ..was intended to challenge stereotypes about the way that Jesus was conceived and get people talking about the Christmas story, the church said. Archdeacon Glynn Cardy said it had already generated plenty of discussion in its conception phase.
But Family First national director Bob McCoskrie describes the church’s plan as irresponsible. “The church can have its debate on the virgin birth and its spiritual significance inside the church building, but to confront children and families with the concept as a street billboard is completely irresponsible and unnecessary,” he said.
The billboard is funny and harmless in my opinion.
Photo from Stuff.
Now if the billboard showed Joseph ravishing Mary, then I think there could be grounds for complaint, but I think it us rather cute.
And all things considered, you do have to wonder how it was for Joseph. I mean if God gets your wife pregnant, that is going to lead to performance anxiety.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Anyone want to argue that this is yet another example of the political correctness and cultural stupidity that we have allowed to develop over many years.
The Socialists have encouraged this behaviour and it is mostly the socialists who raise the issues.
Time to tell those who would carp on about how this or that offends them to FOXTROT OSCAR
December 17th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Its not just the Family (whip em with chains) First, its also that trglodyte catholic Lindsay Freer “Our Christian tradition of 2000 years is that Mary remains a virgin and that Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph,” she said. “Such a poster is inappropriate and disrespectful.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10616011
IF Mary remained a virgin, who fathered Jesus’ siblings?
IF god was Jesus’ father why do Matthew and Luke have (differing) genealogies of Jesus, both ending with Joseph, not god?
Just as the 72 virgins was a mistranslation of 72 raisins, so was virgin a mistranslation of young woman.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:09 am
IF Mary remained a virgin, who fathered Jesus’ siblings?
The Catholics think that when the (inerrant) Bible talks about Jesus’s siblings it’s mistaken and it really means his cousins; thus Mary remained a perpetual virgin.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:09 am
It will be a cold day in hell before any self appointed special interest group tells me where and when I can exercise my free speech.
lastmanstanding observes correctly this is what you get when you encourage the victim industry. Show me the legislation that allows people to go through their lives without the risk of being being offended.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Now if the billboard showed Joseph ravishing Mary, then I think there could be grounds for complaint, but I think it us rather cute.
If h was her husband, and it was consenual, whose business is it?
And all things considered, you do have to wonder how it was for Joseph. I mean if God gets your wife pregnant, that is going to lead to performance anxiety.
According the bible, they were not married, they were engaged.
The Socialists have encouraged this behaviour and it is mostly the socialists who raise the issues.
lastmanstanding take your stupid, pointless, knuckle dragging stupidity elsewhere, it is not wanted here. neither family First or the RC Church are socialists.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:10 am
The intensity of their complaints about a show tends to be an excellent indicator of how much I will enjoy it.
I’m guessing family first hated the second season of BattleStar Galactica but loved the ending.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:12 am
if God gets your wife pregnant, that is going to lead to performance anxiety.
You don’t know your Bible very well, David.
It was the Archangel Gabriel.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:13 am
“lastmanstanding take your stupid, pointless, knuckle dragging stupidity elsewhere, it is not wanted here. ”
Well these a shock, another fuckwit leftie telling other people what they can say where they can say it… on someone elses site.
Good work making his point for him.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:17 am
It’s amusing and clever and draws attention to one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity – the virgin birth. The Church should be congratulated.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Here’s something else Christians complained about – and got excoriated for it.
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/index.php
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I actually like it. It gets people talking about Christmas and its origins. I might not be a Christian but I can appreciate the intention… and I know it will come up in discussion with my husband’s family around the Christmas day table.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I think it’s needlessly offensive. They would have known it would upset some people. To do so is impolite.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I do wonder if their donors really approve of such use of their money.*Harumph*
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:34 am
MyNameIsJack
Idiot I was going to add that FF are not Socialists but didnt and this that was an example of how even the RIGHT have been dragged down to the PC CS mentality.
However for your benefit I will repeat that FF are NOT Socialists but have been infected with this Socialists disease
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:35 am
This stuff about the immaculate conception is just stupid and anyone of rational mind just iognores it but it does tend to undermine this fantasy that Jesus Christ is the son of god. So we have to believe the first myth in order for the second to be true. And then it get whipped up into the “virgin” birth and all the rest. Christianity is not for the sound of mind and rational.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Much as it tickles my sense of humour it shows the extent to which mainstream Christian religions have collapsed in the face of a secular society; in order to get attention they have to appeal to the very notions used to mock them.
I suppose as an atheist this should please me, but actually I find it rather saddening.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I’ve always thought the virgin birth (VB) was a mistake.
It’s just bad event management. Now if Jesus had appeared at the bottom of a bolt of lightening or was lowered down on an invisible wire, say mid-morning on market day, then the whole campaign would have gotten off to a better start. It would have really caught the attention of the man in the street.
The other problem with the VB is it leaves the door wide open for conspiracy theories. Nutters can go around and say things like “Jesus was just an ordinary bloke and Joseph and Mary were just naughty”, or “Why do you think God/Jesus decided to be born just like any other man?”. It brings the whole marvellous entity into disrepute. And all because of bad event planning. Shouldn’t we expect more from an all-knowing God?
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Hilarious! Family First have joined the ranks of the Socialists
lastmanstanding , better watch out, Bob McCoskrie may sue for defamation
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I bet they wouldn’t have done it if it showed Muhammad mounting his 9 year-old wife.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I’m not up on Middle-Eastern mysticism so some help please.
She was his wife.
Was the sheila pregnant when she married him?
Did she tell him before the ceremony?
If she was already married when she got pregnant what happened on the wedding night? Did he get too pissed?
Is that the reason so many of the wet bastards are down on booze?
As an aside if one of my wives came to me and said “I’m pregnant dear, God done it.” I wouldn’t be around for the birth – particularly if, as in the case mentioned, she hadn’t been giving me any.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Yes, very clever, funny with multiple meanings, it got me thinking. Off course it’s provocative, it provokes thought.
What child growing up in a normal family would be offended by seeing a couple in bed? Don’t Family First want children to see normal things? Oh dear, it might even provoke a child to think, it might even provoke them into thinking about religion.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Ryan could you show me this law that requires people to be polite please.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:42 am
TripeWryter (197) Says:
December 17th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I bet they wouldn’t have done it if it showed Muhammad mounting his 9 year-old wife.
Why would a xtian church erect a poster about mohammed?
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Murray (4118) Says:
December 17th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Ryan could you show me this law that requires people to be polite please.
Murray, could you show us all where Ryan claimed there was such a law?
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I’m surprised Redbaiter isn’t in here demanding to see the birth certificate.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Progressive Christians mocking the Theotokos and Ever virgin Mary – a pitiful attempt to appear relevant to the modern secular mind.
The very idea that someone might see something beyond their “sexuality” is enrages the modern mind which is why the Virgin Mary comes in for so much stick if you ask me.
But the Magnificat remains and shows something far more profound.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Why would a xtian church erect a poster about mohammed?
Jack:
Vote:They wouldn’t.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Boy andrei, so many contradictions, idiocies and lies in so few words. How can anyone parrot and believe this tosh?
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:56 am
TripeWryter (198) Says:
December 17th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Why would a xtian church erect a poster about mohammed?
Jack:
They wouldn’t.
Exactly. So what was your point, again?
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Trying to give kids the message that a couple in bed is not something they should see is very sad.
Or, is Family First surely just trying to promote this, any publicity is good publicity, if they hadn’t highlighted it like this it would never have got the coverage it has. Perhaps we should be applauding their effort.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Glynn Cardy obviously does not understand the basics of the faith he is meant to be preaching about every Sunday.
He was interviewed by Radio Live this morning and claimed that the virgin birth was not true. How can he remain a reverend in the Anglican Church if he does not even believe in the basic foundations of the faith?
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
“I’m used to Family First complaining about all my favourite films, shows and TV shows. The intensity of their complaints about a show tends to be an excellent indicator of how much I will enjoy it.”
For once this leftie is in complete, 100% agreement with David Farrar.
And that billboard is class. “The children” won’t get it, and will ignore it and move on. And if Mum & Dad’s faith isn’t strong enough to deal with a minor jab like this, well what sort of faith do they have?
(FFS even this atheist can see that if you had been touched by the hand of your heavenly creator-being, in whatever sense, probably not even the greatest sex ever is going to compare to that! )
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
i quite like the bum-dribble-baby theory myself. just saying *dons flame suit*
[DPF: 20 demerits - step too far]
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Family First are just morning the loss of a bigone era, and they are welcome to it. But I do get sick of them trying to tell us what we can and cant watch, and then the hypocracy re the whole anti smacking thing.
But yeah whatever.
In my opinion its not funny but yeah whatever.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Interestingly, under s 56(1)(b) of the Marriage Act, there is a $200 fine for denying that Jesus was the son of Joseph:
Offence to deny or impugn validity of lawful marriage
(1) Every person commits an offence against this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $200, who—
…
(b) Alleges, expressly or by implication, that the issue of any lawful marriage is illegitimate or born out of true wedlock.
Oh, stupid pointless old law
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
You’ve taken kiwiblog from behind to a new low.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
That is a non sequitur Pete George as you well know. The implication of this poster is that Joseph does not measure up to God in sexual performance.
And in so doing it trivializes, as it is intended to do, the Theotokos – which means “God Bearer”.
That these things happen is of no surprise to me or any other Christian – we are warned in the Scriptures that it will.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Stupid, pointless post, too Graeme. NZ law doesn’t apply outside NZ.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Andrei, why would kids even think of any sexual connotations? They don’t think like adults – or if they do then too late, this won’t change anything.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
@mnij
Biblical law does, though. Biblical law applies anywhere. Especially Old Testament, because that’s the Torah, and the Torah is the prequel to the Koran. Which is awesome, because the one God thing really gets confusing for people when you trace the history and people spaz out because they don’t realise that the teachings of Christianity mirror spookily the teachings of Islam.
I love the Bible. Always have done. Even the really twisted bits we used to look up in school. It’s awesome. Most times, it’s like Dennis Cooper, Bret Easton Ellis and William Burroughs rolled into one:
THAT is worth marching for.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
For the sake of pedanticism, the term “immaculate conception” refers to the birth of Mary. That is, that Mary was born without original sin, thus making her suitable to be the mother of Jesus. This billboard is a reference instead to the doctrine of Virgin Birth.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I agree with tom hunter and andrei above and strongly disagree with DPF. FF have as much right as anyone to complain about this rubbish pathetic attempt to be relevant .One can be relevant ,educational or provocative with out bringing a cheap shot sexualisation to the issue.
Once upon a time we had standards ,every one knew what they were and where they stood.It’s a pity that some people who call themselves conservative don’t seem to have a sense of dignity or appropriateness and excuse just about anything in the name of free speech or rationalism or some other ism.
Anyway if anyone’s interested in some decent conservative thoughts on the issue see the following
http://www.rogersandall.com/sexualizing-everyday-life/
[DPF: They have the right to complain, and I have the right to mock their complaining. So what is your problem?]
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Saw this is the tree version of the Herald and somehow knew it’d end up on kiwiblog.
I think it’s in bad taste, but then that’s to be expected when our major museum once featured the ‘virgin in a condom’, and other artists have made so-called art such as ‘virgin in urine’.
Interesting that it’s Christian (and quite often Catholic) iconography that is mostly made fun of – not Muslim, or Jewish, or Hindu. Or when someone curses it’s usually J____ C_____ ! Perhaps people unconsciously know to blaspheme against something that is really and truly holy, otherwise it wouldn’t mean very much to take the name in vain or something that wasn’t real.
I think it’s doubly bad that a church put up the billboard. They could have drawn attention to the true meaning of Christmas without resorting to this bad-taste stunt.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
5 Don’t cross-dress. God hates it. 6 If you come across a bird’s nest, don’t take the mother with the eggs. 7 Really, I can’t stress this enough – let the mother go, and you’ll have a long and happy life. 8 And when you build a house, make sure you build something so that if anyone gets on the roof, they don’t fall off. 9 And stick to grapes. 10 And don’t plow with two different forms of livestock. It’s like using radials and crossply on the same car. Disaster. 11 And don’t wear mixed materials. 12 And fringes are important on clothes.
Really.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Do you mean Piss Christ?
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
The church which put up the billboard follow a homosexual god as Mary has no place in their worship..
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Interesting that it’s Christian (and quite often Catholic) iconography that is mostly made fun of – not Muslim, or Jewish, or Hindu.
In the NZ context, the only people who would ‘get it’ if it were the other ones would be the followers, of which there really aren’t very many, so value for money = quite poor. Most NZers have some idea about Christian stories/traditions, whether they’re religious or not.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
DPF use a spellcheck on your titles !
Perhaps people who are quick to judge the church in question should read the church’s thoughtful piece on the billboard.
http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/nav.php?sid=498&id=999
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Jack:
Indirectly, it was that it is alright to put up something that might take the piss out of Christians, and that Christians are expected to laugh about it, or take it. And, in a way, so they should. Probably God has a sense of humour.
But they wouldn’t dare do it for Muslims, because Muslims don’t appear to have a sense of humour and they seem very ready to take offence on God’s behalf. Whether he cares or not.
And, as I said, we wouldn’t be having such a sanguine discussion around the country today if it was one showing Muhammad mounting his nine-year-old bride.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Murray, could you show me where I said the billboard should be banned by law, please?
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
But they wouldn’t dare do it for Muslims, because Muslims don’t appear to have a sense of humour and they seem very ready to take offence on God’s behalf. Whether he cares or not.
Actually, Mary is a really big deal in Islam. The longest Surah in the Koran is about her, she’s much more important to muslims than protestants.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Its disappointing that a Christian pastor has fallen into the secular relativist trap, in attempting to reduce two thousand years of tradition and belief to the lowest common denominator.
Its also disappointing to see that the “Last Acceptible Prejudice” is alive and well. Some demonstrating their ignorance of Jewish law and Christian – predominantly Catholic – teachings and beliefs.
But as one commenter above noted, if faith isn’t strong enough to handle criticisms like this, whatever. Its happened plenty of time over the last two millenia, and will continue till the end of time.
Not a big deal really. Nothing to see here, move on.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
The billboard and the text that goes with it is not about Christ, the Virgin Birth, God or anything like that.
Its about St Matts and its loss of faith and mission. It also quite correctly sees itself as buggered in terms of congregation and must appeal to a wider, secular audience because thats where the money is.
In effect St Matts is repositioning as a secular charity.
JC
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Is this a new trend now : to publicise supposedly contentious campaigns without actually putting anything up – like I understand the Atheist Bus ads won’t appear [according to the stuff.co item] until next year, and this Joseph/Mary billboard is not yet in place.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I think that the church wasn’t thinking as they try to connect with secular society.
The core concept is the issue and I agree with Andrei
“That is a non sequitur Pete George as you well know. The implication of this poster is that Joseph does not measure up to God in sexual performance.
And in so doing it trivializes, as it is intended to do, the Theotokos – which means “God Bearer”. ”
They missed the boat as they trivialise the divine.
Vote:Instead they could have looked for something positive to connect with.
There’s humour and baseless humour.
This isn’t Humour.
December 17th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
What else could you expect from a “progressive Anglican Church?”
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Thanks Deepthroat for the link to the Church who put the billboard up.
I wouldn’t call them thoughtful at all, but sadly they are a bunch of people who have got it horribly wrong.
http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/nav.php?sid=498&id=999
“Fundamentalism believes that Christianity is essentially about individual salvation and admission to an after-life off the planet. What one believes rather than how one behaves is paramount. This planet is merely a testing ground.
Progressive Christianity however emphasizes behaviour above belief. How one treats ones neighbours, enemies, and planet is the essence of faith. The celebration of the birth of Jesus is a celebration of God in every birth and every person.
For fundamentalist Christians the incarnation is about the miraculous arrival of a baby soon to die and by his blood save us. For progressive Christians the incarnation is about the miracle of this planet earth and all life that exists here. ”
Talk about arse about face – behaviour comes from belief not the other way round, the incarnation is about one thing Jesus and God’s love for us.
Vote:Christmas is not about the celebration of God in every birth BUT ONE BIRTH.
The big deal is who Jesus is to You.
and if this is their idea of progressive Christianity it’s no wonder the Christian third world is rejecting them.
December 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Deep Throat 1:19 pm,
From the St Matthew’s site:
The Importance Of The Virgin Birth of Jesus the Christ
This ‘church’ (I use the term loosely) denies the virgin birth of Christ.
If Christ was not born of a virgin by conception of the Holy Spirit, then he was just a man, and not God at all.
Many people, including Christians, don’t understand the importance of the virgin birth of Christ – I will try and explain, it is Christmas after all.
For Christ’s death on the cross to be acceptable and adequate in its payment of mankind’s sins it had to meet God the Father’s standards. Firstly, Jesus Christ had to be fully man, and yet without sin. But the trouble is that sin is passed from father to children all the way back to Adam. Sin is passed through the father’s blood. Thus ALL of Adam’s descendants are conceived in sin. To get around this Jesus Christ had to be born of a woman to be fully human. She had to be pure sexually ie a virgin. But because He was conceived of the Holy Ghost He had no human father, and was therefore without sin humanly speaking.
On the second count Jesus Christ had to be sinless in nature too. But as all the creation had been tainted with sin after the fall of Adam and Eve, the only way for Christ to be without sin by nature was for Him to come from outside the Creation. The only thing out side the Creation is God; therefore Christ had to be God to have no taint of sin.
Thus Jesus Christ was sinless by birth and by nature; He was both a perfect/sinless man and He was God Himself.
In the same way that man is tainted by sin through the blood of our fathers (back to Adam), to be made clean we must be washed in Christ’s blood which He shed for us on the cross. This is the only way our sins are ‘washed away’. To believe on Christ is to acknowledge who and what He is. That He was conceived of a virgin, that He is sinless, that He is both fully man and fully God, and that His death, burial, and resurrection are the only hope of salvation for the sinfull race of man to those that come to Him in repentance.
I trust some of you may actually take time to reflect on the true meaning of Christmas at this time.
Vote:I believe time is short as to when Christ will return again. When He comes this time it won’t be as a baby in a manger, but as the Lion of the tribe of Judah – He will come to judge the nations.
As I said, time is short, none of us know when we may pass out of this life. Come to Him in repentance while you still have breath. Do not gamble with your eternal existence – for that is what is on the table.
December 17th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
JC, agree with you there. It is something that they have been doing for some time. One only has to look up Cardy’s views on Easter to see this.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Gosh, when you put it like that it all seems so sensible.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
MikeNZ & Kris K – completely agree with you both. It’s bad enough that true meaning of Christmas has been diluted by consumerism for years now. To add St Matthew’s secular humanism (thinly disguised as ‘progressive Christianity’) must really grieve God
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Kris, when Adam was created in God’s image, is that literally meant to mean that Adam looks physically like God? Because if it goes past physicality and toward character then we’d have to logically conclude that God himself would have succumbed to temptation. And by going further down that path then we have to wonder why God created the temptation in the first place when he knew that Adam would succumb, and that there must be a motive for God to have created this experiment.
Perhaps God was looking for salvation himself, that he knew his character flaws and was trying to create a being that had higher resistance to temptation. Seriously you have to question this episode, I mean also why put the tree and Adam (and Eve) in the same place, he had the whole planet to use. Which brings me to ask why was the Garden of Eden such a special place? What was wrong with the rest of the planet? Were the other animals concentrated in one geographic area as well or were they spread around the world?
You know I don’t usually take an adverserial point of view on Christianity, in this case my arguments are actually directed against literalism. Personally I think the bible in many cases (and especially around the creation) is not meant to be literal, for example I don’t think the bible is literally telling us the earth was created in 7 days, I think you have to treat it a little bit like poetry or allegory, and remember that the story of creation in Genesis would originally have been passed down through generations as oral history before the written language came to be.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
RightNow 2:37 pm,
I believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God.
I believe He preserved His word and didn’t rely on man alone to keep it on His behalf.
You and I succumb to temptation everyday (like Adam & Eve), but I have trusted Christ to wash me clean of my sins; past, present, and future. His sacrifice on our behalf is more than sufficient in this respect.
I believe that had God so chosen He could have brought the creation about in seven nano seconds.
And yes, I believe in the creation account as recorded in Genesis – literally.
Our potential to sin is linked to our potential to CHOOSE to love our Creator – it’s called free will. We either choose to accept or reject God and His offer of salvation. My prayer is that you might consider His offer.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
i think its just weird. what kinda church is this?
you wouldnt see people from the church of global warming taking the piss out of themselves!
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Look at St Matthew-in-the-City the right way -
Vote:http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/nav.php?sid=498&id=999
666=pı&86ㄣ=pıs¿dɥd˙ʌɐu/zu˙ƃɹo˙sʍǝɥʇʇɐɯʇs˙ʍʍʍ//:dʇʇɥ
December 17th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Kris K
And yes, I believe in the creation account as recorded in Genesis – literally.
How can you, unless you have thought it through?
Verse 3 creates light. But its not until verse 14 that the sun and the moon are created. So what was the light in V3? And when was it turned off so the sun and moon can work? And why did god say the moon was to light the night when it is often in the day time sky and the night remains dark?
And v11 talks about seed bearing plants, but makes no mention of those that propgate by tubers or division. When were they made?
And no mention of planets and galaxies and all the vast expanse of space.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“what kinda church is this?”
One with too much money! I believe they take donations for a homeless shelter in or next to the church – while i have no reason to think the donations for the shelter went towards making the ad, the ad money could perhaps have been used for the shelter. Whatever though, their money.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
MyNameIsJack 3:14 pm,
I will answer your first question.
Suffice to say there are answers to your other questions, but I don’t want to railroad this thread.
God IS Light:
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
DPF did I say you couldn”t mock them? What”s your problem?
[DPF: You implied I thought that Family First should not have the right to complain. I am an absolute defender of their right to complain - as I said it is usually a good way to decide what to see]
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Kris K, none of that has anything to do with what is in Genesis, which you believe literally.
How about answering the questions instead of doing a reid?
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
St Matthew-in-the-city
Vote:But take care lest by any means this liberty of your’s become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. -1 Corinthians 8:9
December 17th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
On a less serious note I feel the need to quote some scripture myself:
On marriage:
Better to live on the roof than share the house with a nagging wife. (GNB: Prov 21.9)
Better to live out in the desert than with a nagging, complaining wife. (GNB: Prov 21.19)
A nagging wife is like water going drip-drip-drip on a rainy day. How can you keep her quiet? Have you ever tried to stop the wind or ever tried to hold a handful of oil? (GNB: Prov 27.15)
On Labour’s education policy:
It does a fool no good to spend money on an education, because he has no common sense. (GNB: Prov 17.16)
On AGW alarmists:
Vote:Those who love knowledge want to be told when they are wrong. It is stupid to hate being corrected. (GNB: Prov 12.1)
December 17th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Now, there’s an interesting thought!
It may be possible in the not-too-distant future to fertilise an egg using stem cells from the mother, or from another human. A child of such technology (who would obviously be female) would, by the quote above, be free from original sin.
Perhaps the second coming of Jesus is merely awaiting the development of this technology!
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
“A child of such technology (who would obviously be female) . . .
Virgin birth – Men typically have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each diploid cell of their bodies. Women typically have two X chromosomes.
Vote:So-called XX males (also called de la Chapelle syndrome) have two X chromosomes but with one of them containing genetic material from the Y chromosome, thus making them phenotypically male; thus they are genetically female but otherwise appear to be male.
December 17th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
A very disappointing advertisement in my opinion, especially coming from a church. One wonders, besides an overwhelming desire for publicity, what the church hopes to gain by this?
The atheists and agnostics on this blog ridicule the whole thing, the Christians are appalled — what has St Matthews in the city gained by this expenditure? Are any of the atheists and agnostics and non-believers going to say to themselves — gosh what an interesting twist on the Christmas story — I must go to church and particularly to St Matthews in the city to find out more?
Also what is the Anglican Church going to do about this? A church mocking one of its own central beliefs! Do they have any church discipline or can anyone just believe any old thing?
But look if there is anyone out there who has been motivated by this poster to go to church, please let us know. It would be nice to know that there are some positive points to what seems to be at best pointless posturing and at worst a denial of the Christian faith.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Why is it seen as mocking? Why should Christians be appalled? Why would it deny faith? Maybe it just depends on what you try and read into it. Is it just misconception that leads people to think it says that the immaculate conception didn’t happen?
If the story as believed by Christians was true it would be a weird sort of relationship. Wouldn’t it? You can’t just expect Joseph to be wrapt with it all, and Mary could feasibly ponder a second coming.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
The arch deacon was just on Jim Mora’s.It’s all about God not being a He so there you have it a smutty joke to prove that sexual politics are alive and well on the far out fringe of the Anglican Church.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
MNIJ suggests:
Don’t know about back then, but that sure as hell holds true nowadays
They had a billboard showing the “conception phase”?! Presumably that one was destined for K Road.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I see on tonight’s news that a guy has painted over the billboard with brown paint. He is shown on the news doing this.
Good for him!!
Also, the Anglican church is going to have word’s with the ‘minister’ who put it up and may censure him.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Thought there’d be at least one of the usual right wing fruitbar wing nut knuckle draggers who’d approve of destruction of private property.
Fletch, come on down.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Billy
Lucky the church didn’t use Mohamed and aisha as their model or we’d see a bomb threat or some such.
Instead we get a middle aged man with a paint brush.
Having read the churches website now, I think they’d be very much at home in your house.
Vote:But that’s Anglicans for you as opposed to Christians.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
This comment from Mark Steyn in 2005 seems appropriate:
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
billyborker, do you remember saying this:
Perhaps before you express dismay at others approving of the destruction of private property (a religiously offensive sign) you could think back to your own exploits, driven it would seem by a desire for fun at the expense of others.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
That’s hardly coincidental, so it makes the tv “news” crew complicit in the defacement.
That some Christians would stop the freedom of other Christians to express themselves however they see fit, and that others who would applaud this sort of censorship, is not a good look. Christian morals have been overtaken by selfishness.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Not quite Pete. One unknown person (ergo their moral framework is open to debate) has defaced a sign for an unknown reason (but also open to debate). It’s hardly an act that depicts Christian morality as a crisis point.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
It’s supported here and elsewhere, krazykiwi, it’s not just one person. I didn’t say at a crisis point (but admittedly I may have overstated a wee bit), but it is further evidence of Christian intolerance for alternating views, even within Christianity. Anglicans seem to be adjusting to changing times and the age of education, and their pragmatism is strongly criticised.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
MikeNZ (678) Says:
December 17th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Billy
Lucky the church didn’t use Mohamed and aisha as their model or we’d see a bomb threat or some such.
Instead we get a middle aged man with a paint brush.
And of course, you’d approve of this, wouldn’t you? About 2 years ago I snuck up to the verandah of the cristchurch mosque and tied some shoelaces together. I don’t recall any bomb threats as a result.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Pete – The painting was carried out by one person. I think you’d find a majority of Christians (incl me) opposed to the vandalism witnessed here. I think you’ll also find the tolerance of Christians for alternative views to be somewhat higher than, say, Muslim folks. If you’re not convinced I invite you to hold a placard blaspheming Muhammad outside your local mosque. (If you’re open to praying I’d suggest this to be a good course of action!)
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
In keeping with our mainstream media’s pride when NZ gets on the international scoreboards (sad bastards)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6960016.ece
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Billyborker, as usual, demonstrates that he is an uneducated, bigotted fucktard.
Pete George puts himself very close behind.
Before you so willingly criticise and denigrate, do some proper learning. Then your comments may hold a small degree of credibility.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
See what I mean krazykiwi, not tolerance for different points of view.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Oh Pete
You are so funny.
The arch deacon said
The idea was to lampoon and ridicule the idea of a male God in the sky who somehow impregnated Mary,” Archdeacon Cardy told The Times.
“We would question the Virgin Birth in any literal sense. We would question the maleness of God in any literal sense.”
Come on Pete you can’t be that stupid to think that you can screw around with peoples sincerely held beliefs and not get a reaction like a middle aged guy with a paint brush?
Vote:The reality is that this man who wears a dress in a holy house on a holy day doing holy things actually is a liar to some people who thought he believed as they did.
Hence the actions witnessed tod ay.
If this was Islam and the archdeacon had shown such in sincere attitudes towards the divine he would not be long for this world.
Instead he got some brown paint.
December 17th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
You forgot to make a point.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Um, Mike, Christians try and screw with my sincerely held beliefs and I don’t go out defacing their property. I wouldn’t have even thought of doing it.
It just demonstrates how intolerant some Christians are. But I guess it’s not new.
There are a lot of Christians who don’t believe in the literal accounts of conception.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Not only that Pete, but xtians seem to think they have a “god given right” to intrude on my personal space, knock on my door and try to seel me their version of a fairytale. Imagine the outcry if atheists began door knocking, or standing outsisde churches and handing out atheist literature as the worshipers left.
By their deeds shall ye know them as hypocrites.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Pete
I already guessed you were a vapid sort of fella, without a passion deep in your belly from your previous posts.
as for Christians who don’t believe ……….
try this.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-12-10-1Amixingbeliefs10_CV_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Actually, i think I WILL do that this Sunday – stand outside a church and hand out atheist literature. Probably only need 4 or 5 leaflets for the whole congregation.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
I have passion Mike, just for real things.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
I think you mean “You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act.”, Matthew 7:16. If someone knocking on your door genuinely believes that have something that will make your life more fulfilling, that doesn’t make them intruders, nor does it mean they’re using some “god given right”. I’m sure you tell these folks to bugger off, which is your right. You may or may not do the same for kids trick-or-treating, none of whom are using any “god given right” nor are they intruding. Same for collectors for various charities.
I have quite a few friends who are atheists. Not one of them demonstrates even a fraction of the hatred and intolerance that you spit out here on a daily basis. Get some help.
Edit – re this Sunday. We have morning and evening services. Bring 200-300, make your morning literature aimed for 25+ age range, and evening literature for the <25 agre group. I'm sure you will be welcomed.. and probably offered morning tea and/or supper.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
You’ve picked a good new nik, krazy.
Point is, you god botherers are always in our faces with your myths, but don’t like it when we turn the tables.
Which church, and if its near enough …
Of, and I don’t need help, I don’t subscribe to the mythology of ancient desert tribes and think it has relevance in the modern world.
Fairytales are for children, relax, get over it, and LIVE!
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
The virgin birth is one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
Vote:If they don’t believe that then they aren’t Christian (in the sense that they’re following the Christian religion) – simply as that.
December 17th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Fletch,
Can you give us a few examples of your beliefs that are not so essential to Christianity that someone could disagree with you on them and still be properly Christian?
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Fletch, where did Christ
a) Claim immaculate conception,
b) Claim virgin birth,
c) Make belief in both essential to following him?
These are Man made constructs.
Oh, but hang on …
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
I have to agree with Family First. This billboard is an abomination and it insults the incredible story of Jesus Christ. I think the message certainly misses the message entirely. But like all shallow messages it has to bring sex into the picture. Family First is right on.
Vote:December 17th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
WTF are you doing posting about religion during this time of year? It only brings out the moonbats
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Quite right Clint, pete george & billy bonkers couldn’t help but fall for this one!
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 12:59 am
My complaint with the billboard is that it is the usual eurocentric depiction of Joseph, Mary (and by extension, Jesus) with a distinctly caucasian look when the truth is they were, if they ever existed, and I have no doubt they did not, Arabs, who in those days were short, swarthy and very, very dark.
But isn’t it a lovely fairy tale, all the same? Our Xmas tree’s lights and baubles just entrance our lovely baby daughter.
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 1:18 am
I think its a sad comment on our education system that some believe in virgin births. The dark ages never ended for some.
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 1:58 am
What kind of religion cannot poke fun at itself? And they wonder why Christianity is dying.
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 7:22 am
“ And they wonder why Christianity is dying.”
Actually, Christianity is growing, and has been for two thousand years – and still is.
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Is it my imagination or do they look like Mike Hoskin and Kate Hawksby?
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 8:01 am
It isn’t dying in the third world just the self complacent, selfish West.
Vote:but then it isn’t really dying, those who aren’t but have called themselves Christians are now calling them selves what they are, not.
23,000 people come to Christ in China every day some to persecution, just as many in Muslim countries too.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:47 am
As an atheist, I find it deeply disturbing that this so-called ‘church’ should mock, satirise and ridicule itself and its stupid beliefs in such an effective way. This is not the way it should be. This poster should have been used by our lot on our next bus campaign. I think our advertising agency has switched sides and this just goes to prove that there is no loyalty when it comes to commercial interests and it raises some serious questions about intellectual property rights.
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 8:54 am
“It isn’t dying in the third world just the self complacent, selfish [and dying] West.”
That is indeed true: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-jesus-1-1-webjun22,0,2458211.story
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 8:59 am
The bill board highlights the absurdity of the virgin birth myth. Jesus Chris was an important prophet who beliefs such as forgiveness has stood the test of time. I just wish we could drop the nonsence like the virgin birth, walking on water etc and get get some reality into things. The basic beliefs of christianity of good, can’t argue with the 10 commandments, like the concept of forgiveness though it is not well understood, treating others well and so on.
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 9:11 am
MikeNZ (685) Says:
December 18th, 2009 at 8:01 am
It isn’t dying in the third world just the self complacent, selfish West.
but then it isn’t really dying, those who aren’t but have called themselves Christians are now calling them selves what they are, not.
23,000 people come to Christ in China every day some to persecution, just as many in Muslim countries too.
And all that proves is the well known fact, the more educated people become, the less they need to cling to myth and fairytale. Shine the light of knowledge on religion and it shrinks into the dark recesses.
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
MNIJ – so this ‘well known fact’ shows that religious people are uneducated (ergo not intelligent) while atheists are more educated (ergo more intelligent). Quite controversial I should have thought. Apart from your well paraded bigotry, do you have any supporting evidence?
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
yes,
Simply look at which parts of the world are the most educated and the most religious and compare the trend. Even in the good ole US of A, the lesser educated south is more religious than the better educated North.
As you stated earlier, religion is growing fast in the 3rd world, especially in under educated parts of Africa and South America,
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Jack
I take a contrary view as I know people who are far better educated than I who are Christians, some are professionals and some scientists as well as tradespeople and students.
I think the reality is people per se look for an excuse to ignore/trash God which is their choice,
Vote:But on the last day their choice and pride will be self evident.
December 18th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
MNIJ – You are confused about rejection of religion. The affluent simply de-focuses on established religions, and each person unwittingly builds themselves into a little god. They become the object of their own worship.
Vote:December 18th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I agree that self worship seems to be rife – self, money, possessions and status symbols.
Mike, I don’t need an excuse to ignore God, I just have no reason to believe in it. I have no reason to trash either, I think I understand why some people believe. And I also understand better now why some people feel offended by what they see in the poster, although I don’t see it myself.
Vote:December 19th, 2009 at 1:08 am
MyNameIsJack,
what makes you think that as organised religion declines in the west, atheism rises? that is not the case at all; people merely fill the gap with ghosts, wedjie boards, tarot cards, deification of the earth (i.e Gaia), other forms of paganism and a myriad of other new age beliefs. In a word, supersition. At least mainstream claims to have a philosophical and theological basis.
Futhermore, I’m not sure how anyone can applaud the cleric who put up this billboard; he is a complete hypocrite. On his website, he criticises fundementalist Christianity for failing to look after the poor, and for failing to ‘love thy neighbout;. If this priest is so concerned for the poor, why would he waste money on a pointless and tasteless ad??? how can he criticise fellow christians for failing to show love and compassion, when the purpose of this billboard is demonstrably to offend and lapoon? whose failing to be a Christian now?
ALso, what ever happened to intellectual honesty? I mean, if this guy wants to hold and preach those beliefs, then go ahead. But shouldnt he leave the religion which he seeks to undermine? isnt this an issue of false advertising? Its as if the president of the atheist society goes to church every sunday. Or is it that he cant quite relinquish the financial tit of the Anglican Church, as well as the fact aht if he was no longer in his clerical position, he would just be another crazy, washed-up hippie?
creep
Vote: