St Matthew's gives up on it's "offensive" billboard

[p.dath]

What a great plan for us in the ACC debate.

We put up our ACC billboard, and thewn deliberately deface it, and then repeat.

International press coverage huh?

[Tank]

who gives a fuck it people find it offensive - it doesn't give them the right to damage others property.

Gutless fuckers doing it under the cover of darkness - don't have the balls to complain to the people putting it up.

I hope that the church puts a fatwa on their arse.

[kave]

The only problem people have is that it is challenging the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity. I dont believe it is a doctrine universally adapted by Anglicans and as such I dont see the problem with the Anglican church encouraging debate around the idea. The bible seems to be contradictory in regards to Marys perpetual virginity, Protestants believe the bible states that she was only a virgin until the birth of Jesus, wheras the Catholics will excommunicate you if you even indirectly imply that she slept with her husband. On my reading of the bible I felt quite sure that the implication was that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, but translation can alter meaning.

I think the billboard is great, it may encourage more Christians to read the bible. I believe that the more of them that read the bible, the less of them there are. I find it quite amusing that reading the founding document of Christianity is one of the most effective methods of deconversion (judging by the deconversions I have witnessed).

[Maha]

I am a Christian and I took the billboard ad to be more thought provoking rather than offensive.

The billboard appeared to me to be quite witty and clever. God as portrayed would indeed be a hard act to follow, but the core message of the bible is about following him.... or not.

What we choose to do or not do with God is our choice... thank goodness for free will.

Yes indeed he would be a hard act to follow, for wasn't it God that made Heaven and Earth.......in the dark!...

[Katman]

Exactly.. Take Katman for example.

[p.dath]

The only problem people have is that it is challenging the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity.

Religion is way outside of my area of knowledge, but I was under the impression that "virgin" back in year zero meant un-married, as opposed to our modern meaning for a woman of "yet to be penetrated".

So Mary could well have had sex, yet been a virgin.

[kave]

Religion is way outside of my area of knowledge, but I was under the impression that "virgin" back in year zero meant un-married, as opposed to our modern meaning for a woman of "yet to be penetrated".

So Mary could well have had sex, yet been a virgin.

No, the bible clearly states that Mary was a virgin (had not had sex with anyone) until after she conceived Jesus. It is quite clear on that. The problem arises when you try to work out what the bible claims regarding her maintaining virgin status after giving birth to Jesus. Did she sleep with her husband after Jesus was born and were there siblings? It is those questions which are truely difficult to answer (although personally I am on the side of the Protestants interpretation as opposed to the Catholics).

[ManDownUnder]

It's a complex issue and I'm waiting for Bishop Tamariki to confirm what my opinion is.

[ManDownUnder]

So Mary could well have had sex, yet been a virgin.

... so in summary you're suggesting the possibility than an adulteror was chosen by God to carry His son...

I suggest you want for Bishop Tamariki's damnation on that one

[Ixion]

I emailed Glynn Cardy. told him his theology sucked donkey dick, but his billboard was funny. He hasn't replied as yet, but.

If St Jerome could rest the entire Faith on a very bad pun ("Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram " !) then that faith can cope with a billboard.

And , in fact , it is theologically sound, since it explicitly recognises Christ as the Son of God .

[325rocket]

un-married, as opposed to our modern meaning for a woman of "yet to be penetrated".

So Mary could well have had sex, yet been a virgin.

id hit that

[Okey Dokey]

The billboard is typical of the salacious and crass times we live in, in my opinion. Everything gets boiled down to the lowest level possible- ooh, a man in woman in bed! sex!

The "meaning of Christmas"? Give me a break- how could someone look at that and feel like reflecting on the "meaning of Christmas"?

I am not a Christian, and I would find material aimed at Hindus/Jews/*any religion* equally offensive.

[YellowDog]

Religion is way outside of my area of knowledge, but I was under the impression that "virgin" back in year zero meant un-married, as opposed to our modern meaning for a woman of "yet to be penetrated".

So Mary could well have had sex, yet been a virgin.

If that's what your wife told you, then I won't spoil anything

The Bible (New Testement) was composed by many and a great deal of time after the facts.

It would look a bit silly if this great prophet and 'King of the Jews' leader was decended from a rapist Roman Centurian, so the son of god story reads a great deal better.

Such details are unimportant. You cannot prove or disprove any of them. We live in a Christian Society and the strongly held beliefs of many should be respected.

[MikeL]

We live in a Christian Society and the strongly held beliefs of many should be respected.

In what way precisely is contemporary New Zealand society "Christian"? A hundred years ago that statement might have made some sense. Today it reflects wishful thinking rather than the reality of people's beliefs and actions.
As for respecting the "strongly held beliefs of many", would you include nazism, emperor-worship and other deviant ideologies, not to mention extreme religious sects?
Full marks to Glynn Cardy for having the courage of his convictions. His liberal Anglicanism may be distasteful to those brought up on conventional Christian doctrines, but his rejection of the fairy-tale of virgin birth and other doctrinal nonsense while maintaining the essential symbolic truths of the Christian message (and yes it is closer to humanism than many are comfortable with) provides an intelligent alternative to the otherwise inevitable destiny facing the Anglican Church: that is, to wither away as its older congregations die off, while the younger, if they can be bothered with religion at all, are seduced by the glitzy glamour of charismatic churches or scared into the embrace of the fundamentalists.
After more than a century of serious, painstaking biblical and historical scholarship, which has brought to light more contradictions, mistakes, mistranslations, suppressions and deliberate distortions in the text than even the most devious or incompetent politician could have managed, how can intellgent people still believe that the Bible is literally the Word of God?