Blasphemy?

[Jan III Sobieski]

Is this picture a blasphemy and a sin? I'm a practicing catholic and i always pray every time.

They are Mary and Joseph naked
You Catholics decide if this is blasphemy, And if this is blasphemy, this is a FAIL!

[blackwatersix]

It could be. Obviously it isn't according to St-Matthew-in-the-City, since they're a "progressive" Anglican church. Personally, I think it is, a little, since it implies that God had sexual relations with Mary and all that.

I'd love to hear what other Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox think about this.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Mary and Joseph are not God....so probably not.

[Monarchist]

It could be. Obviously it isn't according to St-Matthew-in-the-City, since they're a "progressive" Anglican church. Personally, I think it is, a little, since it implies that God had sexual relations with Mary and all that.

I'd love to hear what other Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox think about this.

Mary and Joseph are not God....so probably not.

The problem, my dear fellows, is that it is more like heresy than blasphemy. Heresy means a choice (that is, choosing to go away from official doctrine). Blasphemy means "injuring the reputation", loosely translated from Greek. Though you could call it both, it is more realistically called the former because we're talking about a Christian Church, with sound traditions and doctrine. I assume that Anglicans believe Mary was the eternal and blessed virgin. The eternal bit is rather important, as it saves her from true impurity, even after Jesus' birth.

Orthodox, at least, believe that Jesus was born of a virgin who had no sex whatsoever, but that the Holy Spirit descended upon her. It "filled her up", as the Gospel of Luke says; there was no literal sex, as God was incorporeal. This is very different from St. John the Baptist and others in the Bible, mind you, in that John's parents were too old to conceive, and yet an angel said "you shall conceive"; however, they went back home and had sex, and John was born. None of the other miraculous births in the Bible are virgin births, but births of people who were considered infertile. This is our official doctrine, anyway...

I go on with that explanation because it serves as a backdrop for my response to this: it is blasphemy as well as heresy to say what this poster says. Blasphemy is obvious here, because they're suggesting God was just some sort of boyfriend on the side who knocked Mary up (God forgive me for using such irreverent language), and not Holy Creator Spirit of the Cosmos. It is a gross oversimplification, and looks more like the work of an atheist than that of a believing Christian. I'll leave it up to God to truly judge him, though I ask that he be given some clemency. It's mostly harmless, after all, even if it's a little insulting. Now, you can secondly call it heresy simply because Mary is Blessed Virgin, eternal in that virginity, and never wavering. To say that God was just an act to follow is purely heretical in terms of established belief. Joseph was the legal father of Jesus, not the biological. It's a 100% oversimplification of everything, in order to bring in the youngsters.

Most of them will just laugh at this pathetic attempt by aging people to bring new flock in.

[Horsa]

Well... Its strange. I wouldn't go as far as blasphemy. But it is inappropriate and inaccurate to me personally.

As Monarchist said, it looks more like the work of a non Christian.

[Chlodwig I.]

Why should that be blasphemy?

It's very unlikely that a married couple in these days had no children.
So it is very likely that they had sex.

[Monarchist]

Why should that be blasphemy?

It's very unlikely that a married couple in these days had no children.
So it is very likely that they had sex.

That isn't the point, though. Mary is supposed to have been impregnated by the Spirit of God, and then I suppose her vagina was just closed, in some mystical way. We're not here to take a gynecological view of the Blessed Virgin, anyway. She's called the blessed virgin for a reason.

[MaximiIian]

Since when is self-referential humour blasphemous?

[Jingles]

i always pray every time.

Every time you do what?

[note: this forum desperately needs a raised-eyebrow smiley]

[Watchman]

Every time you do what?

Accidentally the Bible, maybe ?

[cfmonkey45]

Every time you do what?

[note: this forum desperately needs a raised-eyebrow smiley]

Does this suit your fancy?


Or this?

[Jan III Sobieski]

Every time you do what?

[note: this forum desperately needs a raised-eyebrow smiley]

I prayed, every day

[Helm]

Mormons believe that God came to Earth in human form and did the deed with Mary though that kind of negates the whole virgin birth aspect.

[Dayman]

Blasphemy? Nah.

Fetish fuel? Hell yes.

[Boer]

Here is a defense of the billboard, I believe by the group that put it up: http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/nav.php?sid=498&id=999 .

It seems that this in not blasphemy if you believe what the progressive church that put up the sign does. So its blasphemy in the same scene that every religion/denomination is blasphemy to virtually every other one.

[Celsius]

I think is blasphemy. But what I read on here doenst even come close to that picture. :get lost:

[Arch-hereticK]

Who cares, it's funny. It's meant to be funny, end of discussion.

[Celsius]

so says a person who does not believe in blasphemy

[Arch-hereticK]

so says a person who does not believe in blasphemy

Ok, prove blasphemy exists.

[Celsius]

Ok, prove blasphemy exists.

I can prove it. Just not to someone who no matter what is presented in front of him wont believe it.