Chocolate Jesus

Remove all ads!

at least not from christians...

 

Ok, I'm confused. Chandos, who is this 'you guys' you're talking about?

Ok, now I'm really confused. You're being sarcastic, right?

 

yup, considering the amount of religius violence and killings we have seen in europe from muslims the last few years.

but im at least as confused as you are NOG on who chandos referes to

 

Well.. it is the the first time I would want a piece of Jesus...

I wonder if chocolate Jesus are going to be chopped up and sold on Ebay?

 

In the words of Tom Waits (Mule Variations, 1999):

Well I don't want no Abba Zabba / Don't want no Almond Joy / There ain't nothing better / suitable for this boy / Well it's the only thing / that can pick me up / Better than a cup of gold / See only a chocolate Jesus / can satisfy my soul

...and the chorus: Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus / make me feel good inside / Got to be a chocolate Jesus / Keep me satisfied

So now they've made one!

 

TGS,
try this. And this. Or this.

Aik,

I call them 'Gutmenschen'.

 

The irony is that Jesus himself would probably support this work of art for the statement it's making.

It's thumbing its nose at the idolatry that's become such a big part of Christianity, especially Catholicism. It's thumbing its nose at what Easter has become: a capitalist, consumerist holiday all about eating loads of chocolate and getting fat.

And Jesus, like everyone else who was crucified back then, was crucified nude! If anything, this sculpture is historically accurate. Can you say the same thing about "The Passion of the Christ?"

So many modern-day Christians have come Pharisees, i.e. everything Christ spoke out against and was, ultimately, cruciffied for. Ironic that it takes some whacky artist to point this out.

 

@Ragusa,

Those links are so old, I'm amazed they still work. One is from 1994 and two are from 1998.

However, I will agree with you that the anti-abortionists do share a lot in common with Islamic terrorists. Luckily, there aren't as many of them and they don't have oil money backing them up.

 

TGS,
murders like the one of Theo van Goch don't happen on a daily, weekly, monthly, not even yearly basis. Same for the anti-abortinist murders (harassment continues though).

And I disagree about the oil money. It is vastly overestimated. All it needs is one Bible or Koran thumping zealot and a knife or some other weapon. It doesn't need much money to kill, just the determination. The 911 attackers went to action with box cutters. The attacks themselves cost Al Quaeda between 400.000 to 500.000 dollars. Really, that's nothing compared to what the actual oil revenues in the region amount to. How much less does it cost to build a few rucksack bombs, or to buy a gun, shotgun or hunting rifle and murder some doctor or artist or moviemaker?

And for all it's worth, the US Christian Right is very well organised, and well funded. They are a force in being.

 

Judging by some of the comments (and you may want to refer back to a few of the posts) that were made, it would appear that Christians had no idea that Jesus was Jewish, or that he may have had "distinct facial features." And that those particular notions that if Jesus is not rendered as a blonde, blue-eyed, "Anglo-Christian," that moderen Christians would be offended because they are obviously narrow-minded bigots who had no notion of who the "real" Jesus was. As I commented - go back and read some of the posts for yourself - such views are bigoted in themselves, and of course, have nothing to do with any representation of a religious person or icon and thusly have nothing at to do with free speech (but curiously, other bigots like the KKK hide behind the "free speech" defense as well when challenged), or the Danish cartoons that some here are ranting about.

Ragusa - The evangelical movement here in the USA does not even come close to representing most American Christians. The movement is a political-social movement (mostly within the South), which uses religion as a means to futhering its own agenda, based on its own "core values," often referred to as "family values." It has very little to do with real Christianity - and when confronted by their lack of "Christian" values, they retreat into often obscure references in the Old Testament for defense. This somewhat illogical methodology was adpated by Southern slaveholders as early as the founding of the nation itself, mostly against the real Christians who were appalled by slavery and wanted to abolish it. The notion that the evangelical movement is representative of Christian America has no test in reality.

 

Chandos,
I don't think that they do represent it. But they may do so in 30 years. IMO the combination of religious zeal with nationalist sentiment, that views America as indeed God's chosen country, has a potential to get quite unpleasant for others. And I agree that they are a minority, but unlike the direct competition or opponents they are driven and well organised.

And you don't need good theology to win over laymen. And their theology, especially as far as Dispensational Premillennialism is concerned, is just atrocious. Despite that, stuff like 'The Late, Great Planet Earth' or the 'Left Behind' series sells well.

[ April 02, 2007, 12:09: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

What if Cavallaro made the statue well endowed? It only makes sense that the 'son of god' would have a large package...

I still like the story about "Big Butter Jesus" better.

 

Well, if the chocolate hasn't lost its temper from being molded and set on display like that, the best thing to do would be to melt it down and use it for something else... but I imagine that someone, somewhere, would get up in arms about that chocolate being "holy" now that it's be configured into the image of Christ, and therefore not suitable for consumption by the masses.

Hey, maybe it could be used to dip communion wafers?

 

Hey that's a good suggestion.

Big Butter Jesus could be used for that too.

 

Ragusa - Fiction can be entertaining, even some make-believe "Christian" fiction.

 

Chandos,
it has entered popular culture. That doesn't take away its substance or content. There are people who will read the books in a very different way than you and I do. I cannot help but laugh about 'Nicolae Carpathia', the EU and UN, or details like shipping on the Jordan and the like. For others it is a plausible story. But we're getting astray ...

 

Chandos:
Sorry, still confused. I see a few references to 'white chocolate', but my post seems to be the first that says anything about Him being Jewish and having 'distinct facial features'. Oh well, whatever.

As for the 'you guys', well, even the evangelical movement is a lot more than the crazed 'kill all abortionists' people. There is a very strong, genuine evangelical movement in teh US, which unfortunately gets unfairly associated with the extremists of the Christian Right and the Moral Majority simply because they are evangelical and they are from the south. The actual christian extremists in the US are few and far between and not nearly as powerful as you seem to think. After all, abortion is still legal.

 

NOG,
as diverse as the American evangelical movement is, one can hardly speak of a monolithic entity named the 'Christian Right'. And as I said, I agree that they hardcore folks are a minority, they always are. While it seems they seem to be losing some of their political muscle atm, they're still influential.

But numbers are not everything. TV-Shows like the "700 Club", or the books I mentioned, should be understood less as a mechanism for the conversion of a mass public audience and more as a reinforcement for a growing army of disciplined ground troops. Audience size now matters much less than the number of mobilized voters and actual candidates elected. They will go vote.

Problem for the evangelical movement is IMO that they have in the past associated themselves closely with the GOP, and that is probably what's behind Chandos' remark. Operation Rescue, or the now defunct Moral Majority were firmly GOP moored.

I saw with interest that The National Association of Evangelicals, representing roughly 45000 churches across the U.S., endorsed a declaration against torture, suggesting a move away from strict loyalty towards a political party, and implicitly withdrawing support to the Bush administration on the issue. Something worth to keep an eye on.

While abortion is still legal, a gentle re-shuffling of seats at the supreme court can change that quickly. Roe vs. Wade is not a constitution amendment, but a decision that can be repealed. Don't expect these people to have given up their quest to achieve that. I am certain these people are absolutely sincere in their opposition to abortion, for good reason.
But then, from a utilitarian view the GOP is better served with Roe vs. Wade in place because as long as it is there it can be utilised reliably as a wedge issue against the Democrats.

 

While Bush panders regularly to the evangelical movement he is not really one of them. Bush is really, as Ralph Nadar once described him as, "corporate America dressed up in a suit." Many - although not all of them in the movement - have also broken with Bush on the environment, particularly global warming, as well on the issue of torture. But their core issues are really abortion and gay marriage. Many evangelicals know they are voting against themselves when they vote for Bush, but many of them would rather starve to death, rather than see another abortion.

While I admire their convictions on abortion - not that I agree - their hatred toward gays is irrational. It is a sterling example of the kind of bigotry that is offensive to those of us who value self-determination as a strong matter of principle.

 

But would a man that lived a perfect and chaste life (no sex outside of legal and lawful marriage) walk around with his genitalia exposed? That is what I believe would be disrespectful to Christ.

AS it should be. While no church should endorse a political party, they are obligated to speak out on issues of morality. While they agreed with the Republicans on Abortion and Gay Marriage, they don't agree on issues of Torture. I think they should also find the republicans lacking on their care of the poor and the needy. Truth be told, if Gay Marriage was not an issue, we'd be hearing about John Kerry as president instead of King George...

Hatred I believe is not the right term. I believe it is more like frustration at their inability to get their voice heard. The more the government appears to pander to certain lobbies that offend them or contradict the doctrine, the more this frustration mounts. Secondly, advocating morality is not an expression of hatred for the immoral. It's standing up for their vision of their country. To deny them this is to violate the constitution...

I hear that same bigotry in the posts of the aetiheist or anti-religious community here...