But the city's Catholic diocese is not impressed, saying the implication that Mary and Joseph had just had sex was "disrespectful" and "offensive" to Christians.

Nonsense. There are refences in the bible to Jesus having brothers and sisters.

And nowhere in the bible does it imply that Mary died a virgin.

This is offensive to catholics, who for some reason decided hundreds of years ago that Joseph never once tried to play hide the sausage with Mary. Despite the savior having had siblings.

FTFBillboard:

"Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow".

I imagine so.

Actually, doing some research, their tradition that mary remains a virgin is a tradition of about 155 years.

Part of my problem with catholicism is this concept that in order for a woman to be revered she must be asexual. What the heck is up with that?

The other is, well, I don't buy Paul's conversion.

(Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean i can't call a con a con. The bible is an interesting collection of stories told by people who likely believed it to be true, which doesn't make it true. I merely hold the belief that Paul was among the insincere.)

That's awful. Tasteless. Disrespectful.

Why is there no picture?

Chariset: Why is there no picture?

this is the awful, tasteless and disrespectful part of the story.

from here

For the sake of context, Catholics object to this because they believe Mary is perpetually a virgin -- when Jesus emerged from her body he "spared her virginity" and she never had sex with Joseph. References to his brothers and sisters actually mean his cousins or Joseph's children from a former marriage.

The rest of the Christian world objects because it implies Mary had physical intercourse with God, when Scripture says only that she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. I think certain strains of Mormonism believe God came to her in human form, but most Christian traditions say she was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ and had an ordinary sexual life with Joseph thereafter.

/theologian

Chariset: For the sake of context, Catholics object to this because they believe Mary is perpetually a virgin -- when Jesus emerged from her body he "spared her virginity" and she never had sex with Joseph. References to his brothers and sisters actually mean his cousins or Joseph's children from a former marriage.

The rest of the Christian world objects because it implies Mary had physical intercourse with God, when Scripture says only that she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. I think certain strains of Mormonism believe God came to her in human form, but most Christian traditions say she was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ and had an ordinary sexual life with Joseph thereafter.

/theologian

I don't know of any mormons that believe that Mary was physically boned by the almighty but mormons do believe explicitly in the concept of sexual creation - that being that all creation requires both a man and a woman, be it spiritual of physical union.

Which does mean that mormons believe there is a holy mother, though there's this whole sketchy explanation of why she's not specifically referred to anywhere. The mormon leadership has at times suggested that people are welcome to pray to Elohim if they insist on including their holy mother in their prayers. Feminists have been kicked out of the mormon church for arguing otherwise.

This all raises the question - was the birth of Jesus evidence of celestial adultery, or was Mary more of a surrogate mother?

But anyway, back to the subject at hand - the words used for "brothers" and "sisters" in the ancient greek bible can be taken to mean cousins or even companions but the way that they're used and the context strongly suggests that they mean siblings. Moreover, there is an ancient greek word for cousin, which never appears in the bible. The cousin argument is fairly weak.

The 'children from another marriage' theory doesn't hold much water either. You're asking us to believe that Joseph had at least six children with another woman and was widowed before he married Mary - which would have to mean that he was substantially older than Mary. But there is no mention of any of this in the bible.

Moreover, there's no mention of Joseph's six children from a previous marriage in the story of their trip to Bethlehem, or their trip to Egypt, or their trip back to Nazereth.

There's nothing in the bible to suggest anything other than that Jesus had half-brothers named James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and at least two half-sisters who weren't named in the bible, all of which were the children of Joseph and Mary.

The idea that Mary cannot be both a sexual being who engaged in the physical act of love AND a revered saint is repugnant. It's like calling your mother a dirty whore for having conceived you.

Asa Phelps: But anyway, back to the subject at hand - the words used for "brothers" and "sisters" in the ancient greek bible can be taken to mean cousins or even companions but the way that they're used and the context strongly suggests that they mean siblings.

Also, the sheer number of instances of usage points strongly to references to siblings, and not just vague relations.

Asa Phelps: The idea that Mary cannot be both a sexual being who engaged in the physical act of love AND a revered saint is repugnant.

That's religion: we believe inherently contradictory things, because it's what we've been told.

spamdog: Jesus was a extraterrestrial.

Jesus was a terrorist.

/Not obscure.

Chariset: The rest of the Christian world objects because it implies Mary had physical intercourse with God, when Scripture says only that she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. I think certain strains of Mormonism believe God came to her in human form, but most Christian traditions say she was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ and had an ordinary sexual life with Joseph thereafter.

Obviously, not all the Christian world objects because this campaign was put on by a Christian church. Why Catholics in particular should object is not clear--as you say, many Protestants don't see her as asexual at all, and there is no sense its aimed at Catholics in general. Its provocative, and riffs on one of common secular complaints about Christianity--that it fails to address the erotic in general and certainly with regard to Jesus's conception. People often mistake the Mormon doctrine of God the Father at one time having a body of a man for the idea that as a body he must have engaged in sexual intercourse with Mary. That's not the case, not in the least because Mormons, as many others do--see Jesus as existent long before his human birth, although not eternally existent. Hierogamies are prevalent in most world religions, and in the Song of Solomon as well.

So, I've never really been clear on this: What do Catholics think about Mary Magdalene? Good? Bad? I mean, she was a slut, and that's bad, but she hung out with Jesus, so... she was good?

It is crazy to think the married Mary had never gotten the old salty gravy from Joseph? Virgin? Really? Why hasn't Joseph been sainted?

Technomage: Sign was defaced within 5 hours of going up!



LINK:

www.stuff.co.nz/national/3168791/Churchs-bedroom-billboard-defaced-after-5-hour s /

Wow, what whiny douchebags.

Chinchillazilla: So, I've never really been clear on this: What do Catholics think about Mary Magdalene? Good? Bad? I mean, she was a slut, and that's bad, but she hung out with Jesus, so... she was good?

Exists only as an object lesson of the awesomeness of Jesus.

Malicious Bastard: Fell In Love With a Chair: God musta really wrecked that chick.

By any standards, no sex = no marriage... which makes Mary an unwed mother?

True. Married=your first sexual partner even if it is rape.

An interesting book about the Mary's.