First, if you don't know, educate yourself:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669242/
I'm a Christian, and I just don't see where my fellow Christians take offense and are outraged? What's the problem with making a likeness of Jesus out of chocolate? In fact, I thought the artwork's title, "My Sweet Savior" was a clever play on words.
I don't consider it to be sacreligious, and I don't take offense. Why should I be offended by it? Tell me!
2007-03-30 06:19:22 · 25 answers · asked by Scotty Doesnt Know 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I have bigger things to worry about?
2007-03-30 06:21:52 · answer #1 · answered by <><><> 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I just wish it were a chocolate George Bush on the cross. But then it was a real cross and a real George Bush. Every day a new scandal and more information comes out about just how incompetent and evil he is. What does this have to do about the chocolate Jesus? Nothing - except that the bible beating dirtbag is probably wholy offended by the sculpture -which should offend no one.
2007-03-30 17:45:34 · answer #2 · answered by Shad C 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not Christian... Ex-Christian raised Catholic.
But even I thought that chocolate Jesus' and Crosses were in Bad Taste. I got quite a chuckle seeing one.
Are you really saying there is NOTHING sacreligious about eating the image of Christ? "Hey, I think I'll just have a little nibble of Jesus' face."
It cracks me up in ways I can never truly explain here!
2007-03-30 06:23:39 · answer #3 · answered by lionsworth 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a Christian I'm not offended by the Chocolate Jesus.
The name My Sweet Savior, reminded me of George Harrison's song My Sweet Lord (1970).
Art is meant to provoke feelings. If you're offended then it's not for you, and perhaps that is what the artist wanted from some folks.
If anything comes from it, it gets folks talking about God, that is Christ Jesus.
I was offended by the Piss Christ
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html
but I think that was the aim(no pun intended) of the artist. Imagine how much Christ's own self, name, life has been desecrated. Perhaps that is what that artist meant to imply.
I do not, however offended I may be by any piece of "art," wish for anyone to be censored. There must be freedom of expression.
So bring on the Chocolate Jesuses, if it causes us to pause and consider Christ, all the better.
2007-03-31 05:23:38 · answer #4 · answered by doublewidemama 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you think of it as a play on what so many Christian children get for easter- a big chocolate bunny-then it works even more. It is asking you what the chocolate is about.
The issue some Christians have is that it is naked (like most early representations of Christ on the cross.)
There is no loincloth in the bible, people.
2007-03-30 06:38:07 · answer #5 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not the Chocolate...it's the anatomically correct and without a loin cloth that's the problem.
It's just not necessary...that's the problem. So when something like this is done at this particular time in the liturgical year...you have to wonder if it wasn't meant to offend.
When Jesus is viewed on the cross we are to reflect and contemplate his torture and his sacrifice. We all know he was God and man...we don't need to be reminded in that way.
It's offensive and meant to be offensive.
2007-03-30 06:30:58 · answer #6 · answered by Misty 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you, don't Christians read the bible anymore?
Jesus asked the disciples to eat of his body in a symbolic gesture at the last supper, what better way to celebrate Easter-
(In the course of the Last Supper Jesus divides up some bread, says grace, and hands the pieces to his disciples, saying this is my body. He then takes a cup of wine, says grace, and hands it around, saying this is my blood of the 'covenant', which is poured for many . Finally he tells the disciples do this in remembrance of me.)- from wikipedia
2007-04-02 00:14:17 · answer #7 · answered by polarfiend 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some may be upset because it's a "graven image". On the other hand, they probably have a right to be upset because you would never see a chocolate Muhammad. Most people like to pick on Christians and no one else.
2007-03-30 06:23:44 · answer #8 · answered by chocobocharmer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think his very tasty but seriosuly:
i dont think they put too much thought into this sweet, but hey if u cant laugh about it, then your gonna be seeing him very soon from a heart attack off taking things to seriosuly.
your not really eating jesus...chocolate is not a holy object (although i know a few choc addicts that may disagree to chocolate not being holy lol!)
in church we are given the bread (jesus body) and the wine (jesus's blood) so whats wrong with eating choc that just has a pic off him on their.
its kinda sweet....in both ways lol!
2007-03-30 06:26:38 · answer #9 · answered by Katie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it's that extra part of his body, which is traditionally covered up, that some Christians, for some odd reason, can't handle. But is the human body not God's ultimate masterpiece? Is the masterpiece depicted not of God incarnate? How can any part of that be offensive? (OK, no smartass remarks, atheists. ;-)
Lesson: Do as thou wilt, except do no harm. *Somebody* will insist on being offended, no matter what you do.
2007-03-30 06:36:30 · answer #10 · answered by RickySTT, EAC 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The thing that annoyed me, is this one guy who was ranting and raving about it said - it doesn't look anything like images of jesus we've seen.
I dont believe in jesus, BUT, no one knows what he looks like anyways. And this guy who is putting down someones art work just has no clue.
It's art, art can often offend - but thats what its there for! To open minds.
Chocolate jesus is more SACRELICIOUS than sacrelig. mmm chocolate jesus.
2007-04-01 11:15:46 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋