chocolate jesus contorversy

[Clifford the Big Red Bong]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669242/

why is this a big deal?

is it because hes made of chocolate? that cant be it because that doesnt make any sense.

is it because he's naked? that doesnt make sense either. in the bible, in the garden of eden, werent adam and eve naked? isnt clothing an invention of man? im sure jesus only wore cloths because if he didnt he would have been killed a lot sooner.

where the fuck is the problem? i think people are just bored so they look for problems where there are none.

Christianity is odd. They symbolically drink his blood and eat his body when they go to mass, so why can't they eat Jesus in chocolate form? And even as a work of art that is not meant to be eaten, they shouldn't have a problem with a chocolate Jesus statue considering that many churches have statues of him made out of other materials.

I do not understand why Christians make statues in the first place, considering one of those commandment things: "You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them."

Does that not include statues of Jesus or Mary? I don't understand.

Maybe it's the racist Christians who are complaining because chocolate makes Jesus look black haha

[This message has been edited by Diabolic acid (edited 04-01-2007).]

It's controversial because he's a religious figurehead. Portraying him in chocolate implies that he is nothing more than a cheap tasty thrill. And obviously the fact that chocolate melts lays an ephemeral message on him. Indicating that rather than the almighty-everlasting spirit people think he is, he's a brittle shell.

People need to stop being such whiny little cunts, It's art and in no way does it ACTUALLY attack Christianity. Religious freaks just LOVE to feel persecuted over nothing, Remember those cartoons of Mohammed?

Get a grip. If you believe some crackpot gobbledegook then keep it to yourself, If you don't approve of the sculpture then don't go see it.

[Clifford the Big Red Bong]

oooh so it does have something to do with chocolate. i thought it was because he was naked, because on the news they kept mentioning that.

anyway i still think this is pretty stupid. it reminds me of how epileptics were offended by a line in the movie kangaroo jack, or how albinos were offended by the da vinci code.

Because everyone knows Jesus was white.

If it was white chocolate there wouldnt be a problem.

[kurdt318]

lol and yet if the crucifixion is inadvertantly made on a taco shell its considered a miracle.

quote:Originally posted by kurdt318:

lol and yet if the crucifixion is inadvertantly made on a taco shell its considered a miracle.

haha true

And to Ressotami-- I had considered the idea about the chocolate melting, but if the statue is refrigerated then that shouldn't be a problem. But I think you have something with the idea that some religious folk like to feel persecuted. Maybe they feel a sense of righteousness when they are offended in the name of their religion.

Anyway, the whole thing is retarded.

quote:Originally posted by Diabolic acid:

I do not understand why Christians make statues in the first place, considering one of those commandment things: "You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them."

Does that not include statues of Jesus or Mary? I don't understand.

I remember hearing that churches used to use statues and drawings as teaching aids, as a lot of people were illiterate way back when.

I'm waiting for the movie "Jesus and the chocolate factory"

[boozehound420]

probably something to do with the evangelicals being pissed of that this holy holiday has turned into a chocolate eating, follow the magic candy addicted rabbit holiday.

I don't want no niggra jeebus...

quote:Originally posted by Ressotami:

It's controversial because he's a religious figurehead. Portraying him in chocolate implies that he is nothing more than a cheap tasty thrill.

It's funny you should mention this, it made me think a bit.

What about all those cheap Jesus and/or Mary candles at the dollar store?

Plus, I'm sure if you took a box of animal cookies back in time to an animistic hunter/gatherer tribe and ate them all happily they would scalp you or something. Eating little effigies of sacred animals? Why, BLASHPHEMY!!!!11

I, personally, would happily bite the head off of a chocolate Jesus.

It's just chocolate for pete's sake!

Who wants to eat Jesus' penis?

quote:Originally posted by anti gravity:

Who wants to eat Jesus' penis?

stay outa my head...

since its nigger jesus does that make him have a huge penis?

quote:Originally posted by anti gravity:

Who wants to eat Jesus' penis?

*raises hand*

When I do sacrilege, I go ALL the way.

The church was pissed to find out Jesus' cock was portrayed small

And it's not fucking art, you can't slap the word art on anything you please and pretend it's great. He deliberately went out of his way to make a chocolate penis and "accidentally" arranged the display on easter and pretends to be surprised when his stupid little show was cancelled? You may not agree with someone but come on, if you deliberately spit in someone's eye, expect to get beaten no matter how "justified" you think your shit is

Didn't occur to him to strap a piece of clothing around it to calm them down and lie how it wasn't finished before

Wonder what they did with it

[This message has been edited by Pilsu (edited 04-02-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by anti gravity:

Who wants to eat Jesus' penis?

Mary Magdalene.

[Clifford the Big Red Bong]

quote:Originally posted by Woodsman:

Mary Magdalene.

im watching something on the history channel about her right now. i think what theyre saying about that one sect of chirstianity (the gnostics?) is pretty interesting. if christianity was more like that i might actually go to church.

quote:Originally posted by Clifford the Big Red Bong:

http:../../www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669242/default.htm

why is this a big deal?

is it because hes made of chocolate? that cant be it because that doesnt make any sense.

is it because he's naked? that doesnt make sense either. in the bible, in the garden of eden, werent adam and eve naked? isnt clothing an invention of man? im sure jesus only wore cloths because if he didnt he would have been killed a lot sooner.

where the fuck is the problem? i think people are just bored so they look for problems where there are none.

Before they sinned it is believed they were clothed in the light or glory of God being around them and when they sinned God could no longer be with them so when they saw they were naked they dressed up.If i noticed correctly he was hanging on the cross it is true he wouldve been naked when he hung on the cross but out of respect they useually depict him with a cloth.

quote:Originally posted by Pilsu:

...if you deliberately spit in someone's eye, expect to get beaten no matter how "justified" you think your shit is

*Was* he deliberately spitting in someone's eye though? Was the purpose of the piece to make people uncomfortable or offended? The gallery owner said it wasn't their aim to piss anyone off...

The quotes in the article from Christian objectors mostly just said it was disgusting / sickening without really saying *what* was disgusting / sickening about it.

Some appeared to be upset that he was naked, which doesn't conform with traditional depictions of Christ -- that's predictable, since nonconformists to trends in religious art always provoke emotional reactions. I'm not sure that taboo makes sense, though, given that Jesus (correct me if I'm wrong) was innocent, and therefore didn't need clothing to "cover his shame" since nudity is only shameful to the fallen (Adam and Eve in the garden, Tree of Knowledge...).

Others seemed to dislike it for aesthetic reasons (Bill Donohue, head of the watchdog Catholic League, condemned "the ugliness of the portrayal") which IMHO is pure bullshit -- the crucifixion was agonising and degrading, and to sanitise it is to downplay Jesus' suffering and the extent of his sacrifice, points the Church is very big on.

I myself don't really understand the furore -- these are basically just embellishment on points already raised.



[This message has been edited by Squakey (edited 04-04-2007).]