Comments on: Chocolate Jesus

By: Maureen

Maureen — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:54:13 +0000

Yes, there are many things to get more upset about, but I bet all of our lists would look different in priority if we listed all the evils of the world. It doesn't make one person's distress over something like this less valid. For the record, I wouldn't pay much attention to this, but the people who do have every right to complain if they want. And...would their complaints be more valid if they could assure us that right behind Chocolate Jesus they were fighting to end world hunger and child abuse? (Personally, I find it more tacky than I do sacrilegious.)

By: Musicguy

Musicguy — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:40:08 +0000

Yes, Amanda, you did say that. I was just reiterating your fine point.

Perhaps someone should come up with a list of acceptable materials when sculpting the figure of the big JC. We can have a huge symposium someday in the near future. I think it would be a fantastic use of time and energy.

Yeah, that was sarcastic.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:32:03 +0000

Yeah, but chocolate?! I can understand the sculpture itself – Scripture says that He was naked on the cross – but the chocolate aspect seems a bit over-the-top, if you ask me. That’s the part that I think is unnecessary. I don’t think it’s anything I would have pitched a fit over, but it does at least get a Spockian raised eyebrow out of me.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:58:00 +0000

Isn’t that what I said?

By: Musicguy

Musicguy — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:52:37 +0000

Much ado about nothing. If only Christians spent so much time worrying about world hunger, the worldwide AIDS crisis, war, etc. These people need to re-evaluate what it means to be a Christian. Chocolate Jesus is the least of anyone’s worries (or at least should be).

By: Sue

Sue — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:54:28 +0000

Well, I’m glad the exhibition was cancelled, to be honest. Imagine the furore if the model had been of Mohammed… or even if it were an American war hero. Surely it’s a good thing that Christians sometimes stand up for Jesus, and point out that he’s not to be mocked or treated lightly. I don’t know what point the exhibitors had hoped to make, but it certainly wasn’t anything to do with Easter – apparently they hadn’t even realised it was Holy Week!!

By: Carl Holmes

Carl Holmes — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:54:46 +0000

It really is an issue of worldview. Did the artist do it with the intention to offend Christians, or to make an artistic statement? Constantine (I think) made artists add pants to the naked bodies in royal art work, before then nudity was not a problem.

One thing we can thank the Greek’s for is the ability to look at the human body as art. Nudity is part of that.

When Jesus was being flogged and hung I do not think the loincloth was to much of a worry for the Romans, or for Jesus. He likely was naked. In our bid in the emergent church for authenticity this might have been an attempt at it.

By: Jade

Jade — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:41:01 +0000

I can’t say that I really like the idea of my Lord being potraied as a giant hollow easter candy but I do see your point. Both sides could have handled it better and there are more important things to put up such a stink about.