Virgin Mary ad creates controversy.

Originally posted by Raivan31
reply to post by intrepid

 

If all of the the 'conception of jesus' stuff happened nowadays then mary would most likely get herself a pregnancy test and given that she hadn't had sex i dare to say that she would also be quite shocked by the news.

So any body seeing this in any light other then a modern day depiction of the virgin mary discovering that she's pregnant has their own issues to deal with, One comment suggesting that it makes her look like a whore suggest to me that the person responsible for the comment has an issue with the concept of pregnancy on some level.

Like i said, if all of that bible story stuff went down today then this might be a reasonably accurate depiction of what would happen.

Whats the problem? people looking for trouble and offence where there is none.

Actually it wouldn't be accurate ay all if it happened today...The angel Gabriel would still have appeared to her..and told her she was going to have a child..hence no need for a pregnancy test.

You need to understand the words of scripture .

Originally posted by gabby2011

Actually it wouldn't be accurate ay all if it happened today...The angel Gabriel would still have appeared to her..and told her she was going to have a child..hence no need for a pregnancy test.

You need to understand the words of scripture .

Given todays society, I believe upon seeing an "angel" Marys first reaction would be to perhaps put down that stuff she is smoking. Then yes, perhaps the pregnancy test.

*********** ATTENTION ***********

The topic of this thread is the Virgin Mary ad, and asking the question of whether it is offensive or not. This thread is not a place for your own religious beliefs or absence of them. Please stick to the topic.

Thank you.

OK, since the thread has sort of die off now....perhaps I can fire it back up with the three questions/discussion points I have brought up in the past

****************
do you think she looks
Shocked?
Happy?
Lacking much emotion?
******************
Compare the hands
the left hand looks a bit masculine, where the right hand appears more feminine.

I'm wondering if this was not an "original artist" pic, but rather something scanned in and photo shopped.

(scan pic, add left hand over mouth)
******************

Another thing I notice in the picture is the shadowing on Marys Left hand makes it appear the light source is coming from ABOVE, while the shadowing on her Right hand makes it appear as if the light source is coming from her LEFT.
Just something I think in a subliminal way could alter ones view of the pic. (your brain registers that the shadows are not correct)

reply to post by gabby2011


But, by saying that, you are implying that Mary herself is the one in the womb without the need of procreation, but rather God's action of impregnating her mother.

That is to say: immaculate (clean) conception (initiation of a human being). Mary immaculately conceived Jesus because it wasn't messy (i.e., no semen; no blood from the hymen).

Nevertheless, I could see it as a metonymic name for Mary, boiling down her whole being to the one salient descriptor of her existence: the immaculate conception.

To follow the thread, I really don't see a problem with their expression of the situation, attempting to connect (unwed) teen pregnancy and Mary. Mostly because Jesus is supposed to be an example of human righteousness, kindness and progression. Every (unsupported) teen mother is put in that situation by the faults of society (whether the sex was consensual or not) and so every such birth is a reaction to those social ills, but likewise a chance to begin again better.

What was Jesus except a reaction to the war and pain of that time and a potential renewal of society through acts of kindness and love. Now, whether each individual baby born in such a difficult situation rises to the occasion in a Jesus-like way or not is moot. The opportunity was made.

In the end, it is my belief that Jesus is allegorical for the potential in us all upon existing (upon birth) to become the best we can be and maybe it is unfortunate that Jesus was put forth as so perfect in religious doctrine because that's a pretty high bar to reach for anyone. (Perhaps his mistakes were made in the post-childhood, pre-early 30s phase that seems to be omitted - those seem to be a reasonable selection of years for most people's mistakes, anyway).

reply to post by vogon42


Why are you bothering to ask? What does it matter? It is a progressive, anglican church in New Zealand. They looked at pictures and picked one out and made it look like this and then put it on a big billboard as possible reflection of how it may have gone if it happened today. Irreverent, but effective at gaining attention.

There is simply nothing more to read into this. Except a small band of krazy katholics and they're always going to have a whinge about something.

reply to post by vogon42


I think she looks stunned. The reason for the lost stare.

The hands do look different. Her left arm seems to be in an unatural angle in relation to her body.

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by vogon42

 

Why are you bothering to ask? What does it matter?.....

Because this is a discussion about peoples perception of a piece of art work. (thats sort of the point of this entire thread)