- You did not explain it. You failed to account for how Mary would need a pregnancy test after being told by God that she would conceive.
The had pregnancy test kits back then? Who knew? Of course there were no test kits available then, that's the point! What else could the image point towards other than her having confirmation beyond any possible doubt, that it was in fact occurring, just as she was told?
After being told by God? She was told by an angel.
Did she have prior long experience hearing angels tell her a fantastical thing? Was there anything in the Jewish tradition that would strongly enough match up with what she was told, that she would not at all wonder?
Let me put it this way...
You have no solid justification for your position, based as it is on imagined offense to dogma which you and others read into the poster. But then again, the poster was meant to be suggestive...not explicitly a portrayal of events. That is were you err, sir; in taking your own subjective reaction to the image, as being the only possible interpretation of the meaning and intent of the thing.
And that's what we are talking about, the "offensive" poster, not some undefined theory of how Mary was beyond receiving confirmation of what she was told, what she experienced, that it was all very real.
When the Lord gives us message, a word, a teaching, a prophecy, whichever; He just about always give confirmation. He does not leave us twisting in the wind, wondering if we heard rightly, or it was just some dream, or worse --- that we were being mislead by some imposter spiritual agency. It's a-ok to seek confirmation, it's ok to ask for it, according to biblical record. Strong doubts of course, can have their own consequences, such as Elisabeth's husband, the priest, being struck dumb before and during the length of her pregnancy term with that child whom would be named John, as in John the Baptist.
Mary did, shortly after the spoken message from Gabriel, and the following visitation, the overshadowing of her by the Holy Ghost, receive confirmation from her great-aunt Elisabeth, in such a way as to strengthen her. Mary also later experienced the pregnancy in a very real, earthly, physical way, which in and of itself, cannot but help to have served as yet more confirmation. During the early stages of her pregnancy she had more than a friend in Elisabeth, she had protection & trust from about one of the only people on the face of the earth that could believe what was occurring with Mary, at that point.
The poster was intended to invoke deeper thought or contemplation upon what her pregnancy meant, for her first. From there, what one associates with the image is entirely subjective.
According to the comments of one Catholic witness, it succeeded in that. I had provided that info in post #45, but obviously you must have missed that? For you have claimed I have brought nothing to back my own claims.
Here it is again;
- Marsh Collins said...
Sorry I am still trying to understand how that picture was blasphemous. I believe it shows Mary in a modern light and allows all of us to better appreciate the possible thoughts that could have entered her mind during Annunciation. It didn't change the story outcome nor assume she sinned. Pardon my Catholic immaturity I guess.
Honestly this picture was the catalyst of long reflection on Mary; I have a deeper more complex appreciation for the Holy Mother thanks to a different perspective.
One man's blasphemy in another man's spiritual lesson
Well, so much for it being a flat denial of the Annunciation. It wasn't with one Catholic commentator, nor was it with me.
The poster was designed to invoke thought on "how did she know?" It's target audience were the sort of folks whom would walk right on by yet another Nativity scene such as you yourself have described you were expert at making.
I have no confusion (as you have previously here alluded to) as to not knowing the difference between the visit of the angel, and the birth itself. I do wish you would drop that insulting "Protestants are ignorant" theme. But if your intent is to be insulting, to make it personal, than I'd have to day it's working. Excuse me in objecting to such as;
- It might as well be in your world since you see Christmas in a poster without Christ, the Nativity, Wise Men, the manger, the Star of Bethlehem, the stable, etc. Imagine whatever you like. And keep buying the word of liberals too just as you admitted you do.
What an insulting tone. In my world? Oh, and I listen to liberals, too, rather than allow you to browbeat me into submission.
But hidden among the insults of your comments is yet more proof as it were, that the poster, put up during the Christmas season (not during Advent) was meant to prompt a viewer to think about, and reflect upon what Mary's pregnancy meant to her, and by normal extension, meant for us, with Mary's role being front & center.
It is only natural for one to have thought associations, one idea leading to other things one holds in memory.
It was that very tendency of the human mind to do so, which the sponsors of the poster intended to exploit by design. They knew too, that the "thought associations" among one group, would cause that group (of which you are a part?) to misunderstand their intended meaning, as a spokesman remarked.
It is no crime, no moral failing of my own that such natural thought processes occur in my own mind, searching for and finding meanings differing from those whom found offense. Nor is it a crime I and others had different inward response than some. The same thing, the subjectivity of the interpretation of possible meaning and intent of the image, what it was designed to provoke, does however point also to the prejudices and religious pride, if not bigotry, of those whom were offended.
Also once again, they claimed;
- "Our agenda is to get people to think about Christmas a little more deeply. Some people chose to be offended, but that's not our intent. But there are those who can get past that and reflect on Christmas,"
Luke 2
- 19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.
Yeah, she pondered upon it, and who wouldn't? "Pondered upon it" even after the child was born, after the shepherds showing up telling her about the angelic visitation and message they saw and heard... The Wise Men bringing gifts...the whole scene from start to finish, she "pondered", thought about, contemplated.
None of her later contemplations in any way suggest some shortage of faith on her account, if that is what you and others are insisting is part of the only possible interpretation of the poster(?), as in Mary either didn't hear from the angel, or believe what she heard, or lack of "faith", etc.
Nor does the poster explicitly suggest that the Annunciation did not occur, but that is what you are claiming is the only possible (and you put those two words in caps!) meaning.
I am trying here, to persuade all to look objectively, at what was designed to be at first, taken or understood subjectively.
This is only about the thoughts & ideas which an image provoked, and various reactions which followed. As such, it ethereal, and will pass. As will eventually, all the mis-communication, and bitterness.