It's not that I find any fault with the basic message, although it's on a level of profundity as "knowledge is good."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It's not that I find any fault with the basic message, although it's on a level of profundity as "knowledge is good."
Augustus
…
Most people know what McDonalds is too, but they still advertise.
What positive effect, seriously. You have said this twice but make no clarifiaction why it's worth the money, or even why "sipritual" people are so desperate that they need uplifting. Why aren't these "spiritual" people already solid and in balance via their own wisdom? Do you even understand what you are saying here?
Sad that God is a product on par with the Big Mac.
Last edited:
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Why do you only say this about this organization? All of the advertisers could have spent the millions on doing good rather than advertise at the superbowl. Christians have done more good than any company I know. This organization can try to improve Christians as well as help others at the same time. They also promote Christians to do good on their site, giving them free hats, tees to go do good and then tell their stories.
You must realize Christianity is having problems reaching people today. Seeing Jesus this way I'm sure positively affects some to be more Jesus-like.
No commercial is meant to change the world.
Perhaps easy to understand but hard to practice. Constant reminders are helpful.
Well, as I said in my first post in this thread, I certainly wouldn't stand in the way if Jesus came back to set things right. But until that happens, it looks like we're stuck here to figure it out for ourselves.
But yes, I agree that we should constantly remind ourselves that knowledge is good.
Actually, you make a Biblical point that many people speak bad of God because they don't represent God well!
Yes... my position is to act and speak in an official capacity on behalf of God (represent) -- to describe and draw attention to the even of the Cross in a public medium to promote attendance at the marriage supper of the Lamb (advertise)..
That is a supposition that could be right or could be wrong. Maybe I should exercise love and believe the best and trust they are innocent until proven guilty.
I would argue that most people have a hazy, at least somewhat incorrect, impression of Christianity.
Fair enough
Because businesses use advertising to generate sales and to announce new products. The Superbowl ads fesatured many new products, the popcorners and the new pepsi and purple MMs are examples. Christianity has been around a while. And new ideas there? What does "Jesus gets us" mean? Who is "us"? Liberal Christians? MAGA Christians? Evangelicals who oppose gay rights? The KKK?
The ad in the Superbowl showed a series of pictures of people arguing and fighting. Are these the people Jesus "gets"? If they see themselves in those pictures (metaphorically) does Jesus "getting them" a message to change, or stay the same?
Well since companies exist to make profits that is understandable. Charity helps a lot of people but it falls way short. That is why government aid is so crucial. It's odd that so many Christian republicans want to cut this aid. Why? To reduce spending. Why is that necessary? Because of so many tax benefits to the wealthiest. During the pandemic the wealthy gained more wealth at a faster rate than pre-pandemic. Meanwhile schools struggle to cover costs, and keep teachers due to budget cuts. Some schools have had to cut breakfasts for students who are in poverty. And here we have wealthy Christians donate to an organization to promote their religion, a religion that is supposedly built on a fellow whose primary duty and teaching was to serve others, especially the needy.
Using Jesus as a prop does not seem wise. "Jesus gets us" is self-serving. It's not about service for others. If they had created a series of service for the needy, man, that would have paid off, gotten volunteers to help others (Jesus' real church), and raised even more money, and free publicity.
So my criticism is the irony. Do these wealthy people just not get it? This seems a suverficial and commercial project, not one that will actually motivate and inspire Chridstians and non-Christians alike. No doubt beluevers will feel good for awhile to see an ad for their religious icon. But what will they do with this execpt get temporary and fleeting feelings?
Christianity has a huge network of churches that have clergy who get paid to do this. If a Christian is having a crisis of faith do you really think a 7 million dollar ad will solve their personal dilemma? How many school breakfasts could that 7 million pay for? The ads offered no clear message. What are believers supposed to do now?
The most important thing Jesus taught was doing good for otehrs. Why is that a problem for believers? How is getting a hat going to make them feel fulfilled?
Christianity really thinks highly of itself. Many believers are happy to announce how they are going to heaven. Unfortunately it has a lot of division, and a lack of a consistent doctrine. It's a confused theology with a lot of personal opinion coloring what is important. In many ways it is a superficial and shallow theology, and no wonder it isn't attractive to the young, and even middle aged people. Does spending $100 million on advertising suggest spiritual depth? Look at those pictires again and see many people in need to therapy. This ad won't help them cope. This organization seems to understand their religion is dying, but they completely mis why it is dying. It is dying because it is a religion that will spend $100 million on ads and not human beings. They blew a lot of money and missed a huge opportunity.
And do you think spending $100 million for ads and not human beings is going to sent the right message?
What do you think a $100 million ad campain will accomplish?
What does "Jesus gets us" mean to you?
I can't believe you'd denigrate beer by putting it in the same broad bucket as politicians...
I mean...except maybe Budweiser.
Follow my posts for a week or so, you'll learn for free.
One thing I know, God is NOT a product. But if one were to subscribe to a strictly utilitarian view of the world, and combine that with belief in God, using advertising or other transactional methods to potentially 'save a soul' is completely justifiable.
It's not my worldview (neither God, not strict utilitarianism), but I think people are judging this a little harshly. Just my opinion.
I kinda think this too.
My rationale is slightly different (see above) but it's at least possible that this is done with entirely good intentions, so I'm holding judgement.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Ask them not me. I was referring to spending the money for the ad, Christians can and do both, advertise and help people.
You have no idea what these people believe politically.
I don't think the people behind this ad believe this, it seems you just disagree with their approach, that is fine but I think they think they are doing good.
Again ask them.
Again ask them. It seems to me you are mad because they did not spend the money on what you want. I bet these donors spend a lot of money on charities etc. to help people as well. IN fact I know they do, one of them is teh owner of Hobby Lobby. I can ask you why didn't you spend your coffee money or your movie money to help the poor. It is an unfair question. You can do both help others and spend money on other things.
Ask them.
Again ask them. I agree with you that Christianity is a problem not a solution. My point was only that they are helping others as well as spending money on advertising. Complaining they did not spend their money the way you want them to is I think misplaced.