There is a controvesy here in NYC about an artist's rendering of a nude Jesus Christ in dark chocolate that is to be displayed during the xtian holy week.
2007-03-30 07:47:08 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'd start with the head. It just seems wrong to start with the feet. Same goes with chocolate santa's. I think it's like, you want to remove their brain first, so they don't feel the rest. However, the easter bunny loses his ears first, just because it's hard to bite off the head with out cutting it into 2 separate pieces which can by a lot more messy.
2007-03-30 07:51:58 · answer #1 · answered by Militant Agnostic 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I can see the controversy. All the Christians in the area must be going crazy. Personally, I probably would eat any part of the life size nude Jesus. However, seeing that you asked such a question it seems obvious what part YOU'D eat first. Just below the belly button and above mid thigh level.
2007-03-30 07:52:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'd eat the part that exists first. I'd still be hungry afterwards.
Christians are very squeamish about the concept of a nude Jesus. The Bible says that when the Romans crucified Jesus, they beat and humiliated him, tore his clothes off and crucifed him. Modesty prevented religious artists from depicting a nude Jesus, so they gave hium an illogical undergarment of sorts. I think they view it as inappropriate to depict the naughty bits of their savior, but I really think they're just worried about not getting to heaven if they make it too small. The only thing we know about his naughty bits is that they were circumcised and not very naughty.
Oh, I'll get hatemail for that.
2007-03-30 07:51:48 · answer #3 · answered by Dan X 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Um, I think I would rather eat a chocolate Easter bunny than a nude Jesus Christ for a variety of reasons.
But if I must, I would pick something I could snap off and eat later. ;-)
2007-03-30 07:53:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I thought it was a work of art. I wouldn't eat any of it either way. The idea of eating a naked man made of chocolate is a little too weird for me no matter who he is. It would be kind of funny if they broke it into pieces and blessed it for communion at Easter mass, though...
2007-03-30 08:05:07 · answer #5 · answered by Eric Ford 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Heads up folks: this is not the asker's invention, this is a real exhibition item in MILK chocolate.
(NYC Chutzpah so stated, but some seem to have missed it)
And I do prefer something a bit more sharp, so no thanks.
Green & Black "Maya Gold", anyone?
2007-03-30 08:06:21 · answer #6 · answered by Pedestal 42 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I am pulling the race card!!!!!!
Why did you have to say dark chocolate. Why couldn't you have just said a candy bar of jesus. Yeah, I guess your balls aren't as big as you thought. If you want to say something racist at least come out and say it instead of subliminally typing it
2007-03-30 07:57:14 · answer #7 · answered by Cutie Pie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I always bite the heads off my Easter candy first, so I don't freak myself out by thinking about how I'm eating something really cute.
Seriously, I think that was kind of wrong, especially on a religious holiday.
2007-03-30 07:53:38 · answer #8 · answered by GreenEyedLilo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would never eat such fine art. What original, inventive genius to rely on controversy as the artist's one and only creative device! How refreshing. I don't think that's EVER been done before!
2007-03-30 08:00:59 · answer #9 · answered by rasputina 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well... since I'm not gay, I'd make a little chocolate loin cloth and look for the chocolate Pamela Anderson candy...
2007-03-30 07:58:23 · answer #10 · answered by hyperhealer3 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋