Chocolate Jesus Exhibit Canceled

[Darth Rotor]

For a religion that (at least the mainstream flavors) is based on the idea that Jesus was both human and divine, Christians sure don't like any evidence suggesting Jesus's human side.

I hadn't thought of it that way, Monkey, but that makes sense from a symbolic point of view. Thanks.

DR

 

[Art Vandelay]

You don't seem to know how to use the word "obsessed" correctly, but nice try at overstatement, Art.

Hypocrisy for $200, Alex? Who was the first person in this thread to use the word "obsession"?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Hypocrisy for $200, Alex? Who was the first person in this thread to use the word "obsession"?

So if I jumped off of a bridge, you would too?

Sixth grade much, Art?

DR

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

The more the controversy the art raises, the better the art (IMHO).

I remember way back in the late 80's, an art display by Jana Sterbak that incorporated a dress made of meat (and it's subsequent rotting), raised a big "stink" in Canada. (see http://www.snopes.com/politics/arts/meatdress.asp) Actually the dress wasn't modelled in the gallery, but hung on a hanger. I was at the gallery and the meat dress was only one of about 20 pieces. All the art was very intriguing (especially the mirrored coffins and embroidered pillows).

Personally, I would have liked to seen jesus in one of those leather strapped bondage outfits ....

Charlie (the art of pissing off xtians) Monoxide

 

[fuelair]

Ah, the Paris Hilton method of art promotion.

I bow to your superior marketing skills.

DR

Wish it were marketing skills! Just the study of censorship through history - one of my interests. I also study marketing (re: media influences) but not an expert - see Teek for that.

 

[LawnOven]

I just think it';s funny that, as an artist, if you are interested in creating a buzz around yourself and stirring up a controversy all you have to do is "bio-matter==>Jesus".

Christians are too easy.

 

[LawnOven]

And yet people want to give the Muslims a hard time for going ape sh!# about the Muhammad caricatures.

 

[brodski]

And yet people want to give the Muslims a hard time for going ape sh!# about the Muhammad caricatures.

I don't blame Christians for being offended, nor do I blame Muslims for being offended by eth danish cartoons, it's everyone's right to be offended by whatever they want.

The Muslims that burned down embassies and made death threats are the ones I want to give a hard time too. If Christians were burning down embassies or making death threats, they would be equally deserving of a hard time.

 

[LawnOven]

I don't blame Christians for being offended, nor do I blame Muslims for being offended by eth danish cartoons, it's everyone's right to be offended by whatever they want.

The Muslims that burned down embassies and made death threats are the ones I want to give a hard time too. If Christians were burning down embassies or making death threats, they would be equally deserving of a hard time.

Oh please I'm not going to play who has the bigger fundies; Christians have plenty to be ashamed of. My point was that it's all "free speech", "buy danish" when someone elses savior.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you consider any of the food/art contests on FoodTV a waste of time, Ziggy?

Haven't seen them so I'll refrain from commenting.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I just think it';s funny that, as an artist, if you are interested in creating a buzz around yourself and stirring up a controversy all you have to do is "bio-matter==>Jesus".

Christians are too easy.

One could look at this statue as a bit of trolling.

Others look at it as an oversized Easter Bunny style treat to be devoured by the kids before it melts in the hot weather. But to the artist, it's "his ort," in the jargon of Molly Ivins. Too bad we don't have her take on this, it would doubtless be amusing.

DR

 

[Art Vandelay]

If Christians were burning down embassies or making death threats, they would be equally deserving of a hard time.

Did you miss my first post? There have been death threats.

And yet people want to give the Muslims a hard time for going ape sh!# about the Muhammad caricatures.

Huh? What's your point?

 

[ceo_esq]

Or, you know, his actual words: "Bill Donohue, head of the watchdog Catholic League, said it was "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever."

In other words, for Donohue, there are only a few, if any, assaults on Christian sensibilities worse than this. It is only natural to wonder if the sex abuse scandal made it to this exclusive list.

If one assumes that "one of the worst" means, say, one of the three worst, then of the sex abuse, the Holocaust, and 9/11, at least one must be less important than a chocolate Jesus. Which one is it?

Donohue described the chocolate Jesus incident as an assault on Christian sensibilities; that is, it was limited to an attack on Christian tastes and feelings. Sex abuse is first and foremost an assault in the conventional, criminal sense. You seem to want to characterize it, misleadingly, as essentially an "assault on Christian sensibilities" instead of an assault on actual Christians, which is obviously far more serious. At any rate, your inference about Donohue's position was unwarranted.

Correction: the people most outraged are former Catholics. Anyone who still supports the Catholic Church is either ignorant or seriously deficient in morality.

Even if the Catholic Church bore institutional culpability for the sex abuse (which is not evident), what you say would still be untrue.

I would. He's HEAD OF THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE! If I had been the head of the Catholic League, I would have resigned in protest. Ergo, he is clearly not as indigant as I am.

It's far from clear why, if only he'd been more indignant, he'd have resigned, any more than I would have expected the president of the Navy League to resign if only he'd been a bit more indignant about the Tailhook scandal. Donohue's outfit wasn't responsible for the abuse; he doesn't report to anyone who was responsible for it; and his organization is also dedicated to serving the interests of a class of people (individual Catholics) to which the sex abuse victims and their families belong. I don't see how his resignation in protest would have had even symbolic, much less practical, value - and Donohue appears to be, if nothing else, someone who knows a thing or two about what constitutes an effective protest.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

For a religion that (at least the mainstream flavors) is based on the idea that Jesus was both human and divine, Christians sure don't like any evidence suggesting Jesus's human side. It seems like they'd prefer a eunuch Jesus. Oh, he was completely human...except he died a virgin with his underpants on. And he probably never had to use the bathroom, or had morning breath, or had body odor. Clean, antiseptic Jesus. No sins, no dirt.

I have seen discussions on exactly what Jesus' "fully human" status meant where Christians have tried to hash out their notions of an antiseptic (perfect appellation btw) divine presence on Earth and "just this guy, you know." I can't think of any mention in the Gospels of Jesus eating and only two mentions of any sort of bodily function: "Jesus wept." in John and a verse in Luke IIRC describing him being so nervous in Gesthemene that he sweats blood. The discussions tend to be extra-Biblical and contain a lot of theologizing and rationalization.

The issue though raises one for me, and that's how many contemporary histories about, say, military leaders or polititians contained descriptions of their flatulence and excretory habits. Maybe I should get a copy of Seutonius and see if there's any mention of Tiberius taking a big steaming dump every morning and having his physician check it to see if the omens were good for that day.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I have seen discussions on exactly what Jesus' "fully human" status meant where Christians have tried to hash out their notions of an antiseptic (perfect appellation btw) divine presence on Earth and "just this guy, you know." I can't think of any mention in the Gospels of Jesus eating

Uh, the Last Supper? I guess we don't have record of The Last Tooth Flossing, so we remain uncertain as to the state of Jesus' dental hygene during the Passion.

I am trying to divine your meaning.

People sit down to dinner together, and you infer from the Scripture that since Jesus wasn't described as chewing the bread and swallowing it, nor explicitly of sipping the wine, he didn't eat? I don't think it's too rough an inference to make that they all had dinner together, as was customary when people sat down together for a meal. Had He NOT eaten or drunk, don't you think that would have been remarked upon? I suppose you could look at the Feast of Cana as Jesus merely being the Caterer.

ETA:
From Matthew (KJV)
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

29But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

From Mark (NIV)
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

From Luke 22 (RSV)
[13] They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
[14] When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.
[15] And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
[16] For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."
[17] After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you.
[18] For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."
[19] And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
[20] In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Perhaps the interest in detailed descriptions of bodily functions is a modern fetish.

and only two mentions of any sort of bodily function: "Jesus wept." in John and a verse in Luke IIRC describing him being so nervous in Gesthemene that he sweats blood.

"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?" -- F.H. Buckley (I keep it in my sig.)

Maybe I should get a copy of Seutonius and see if there's any mention of Tiberius taking a big steaming dump every morning and having his physician check it to see if the omens were good for that day.

Excretus gereralus as part of the IPB? Well, considering how some "G2" sections function, that might not be a bad idea . . .

DR

 

[TragicMonkey]

Maybe I should get a copy of Seutonius and see if there's any mention of Tiberius taking a big steaming dump every morning and having his physician check it to see if the omens were good for that day.

For Tiberius, that would have been one of the less oddball things he did.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Uh, the Last Supper? I guess we don't have record of The Last Tooth Flossing, so we remain uncertain as to the state of Jesus' dental hygene during the Passion.

I am trying to divine your meaning.

People sit down to dinner together, and you infer from the Scripture that since Jesus wasn't described as chewing the bread and swallowing it, nor explicitly of sipping the wine, he didn't eat? I don't think it's too rough an inference to make that they all had dinner together, as was customary when people sat down together for a meal. Had He NOT eaten or drunk, don't you think that would have been remarked upon? I suppose you could look at the Feast of Cana as Jesus merely being the Caterer.

I'm looking at the Last Supper and the rest of the Gospels from the perspective of a fundie trying to defend the "antiseptic" view of Jesus where he never enjoyed any "sins of the flesh" like a good meal, a resonant belch or, God forbid, a long, stinky, intestinal-pressure releasing fart. The simple fact is none of the verses you cited make any mention of him eating, only being present during the eating (I'd also note that when he authorized the Desciples to gather grain on the Sabbath, there is no mention of him eating).

With all of the food related stories in the Gospels, shouldn't one of them have included a mention of Jesus taking part in the wine/food if not a recognition of the "fully human" Jesus enjoying his repast? Do you remember the minor uproar years ago about, again, Heaven forbid, showing a laughing Jesus?

As I alluded above, quite a number of Christians I have seen debating the issue of Jesus' humanity concede that he enjoyed food, crapped, pee'd, had erections and itched when he hadn't washed his bottom in a week or so, but they don't dwell on such things like anti-Apologists do.

For Tiberius, that would have been one of the less oddball things he did.

And yet, merely the prologue for Nero and Caligula. As a history major, I am ashamed to admit I've never read Seutonius in entirety. I think that needs to be my next book purchase.

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't blame Christians for being offended, nor do I blame Muslims for being offended by eth danish cartoons, it's everyone's right to be offended by whatever they want.

I'm still trying to understand, what is offensive about this? Is it because it is made of chocolate (I figure Jesus has been depicted in every artistic medium ever devised, so this is nothing different). Or is it the fact that Jesus is shown with a penis? If it were bronze, but with a penis, would it be OK?

 

[Morrigan]

Not me, pal. I am not Catholic. I want to know why it is considered art to depict Jesus nude. What makes this special? Why does the juxtaposition of Jesus and nude beckon the artistic iconoclast?

There are loads of nude statues, of men and women. What makes it so compelling to do Jesus, a symbol, nude? Jesus isn't about physical perfection, but about spiritual perfection. He wasn't Mr Olympia.

What's the big deal with his dick? Why is the loincloth convention not good enough? Why not do Jesus dressed in Centurion's armor? In a Tux? In jeans and a T-shirt? In a tutu and ballet slippers?

And why not naked? How does portraying Jesus in the nude equal being obsessed with his cock? Are you suggesting that the "default" way of portraying someone in art is clothed, and if so, why?
If anything, I would say that making a big deal out his nudity, or worse, being offended by it, is a sign of obsession, not merely portraying him as such. But christianity is well-known for its irrational loathing and phobia of nudity, sex, and all that makes us human and natural.

I can't imagine why people would think the Romans would be cruel enough to crucify someone, but so concerned for their modesty they'd let them keep their underpants on.

For a religion that (at least the mainstream flavors) is based on the idea that Jesus was both human and divine, Christians sure don't like any evidence suggesting Jesus's human side. It seems like they'd prefer a eunuch Jesus. Oh, he was completely human...except he died a virgin with his underpants on. And he probably never had to use the bathroom, or had morning breath, or had body odor. Clean, antiseptic Jesus. No sins, no dirt.

Hell, that's not a human/god combo. That's a cartoon character. And not even a good one. The whole religion is based on a Mary Sue fanfiction!

Nominated.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And why not naked?

I understand where you are coming from.

Whose symbol are we talking about here?

The symbol of Christians, and in particular, Catholic Christians. The use of Crucifix with Jesus in his loincloth is certainly not universal among Christians. Pick your sect for correct symbology, for the debate on idolatry, graven images, etc, ad nauseum.

Jesus isn't a Buddhist symbol, nor Shinto. He may be common and well recongnized, but not universal.

If you aren't a Christian, why do you think naked is better? (My original question without the sarcasm.) Tragic Monkey gave me the best shot at that answer, from an angle I had not considered.

If you do, that's your taste at work, all to the good. I don't disagree that the natural condition, at birth, is unclothed, how can you be surprised, and less than understanding, that those whose symbol Jesus is find someone playing fast and loose with their (Catholic) conventions distasteful?

The article captured an extreme response (hardly mine, I think fuelair captured the artist's motive very well) but I raised the question thanks to (besides my sarcastic nature)

My rather mundane taste in art.
The standard bias one finds on this board.

One need only drop by Religion and Philosophy for more data points on that behavior, I think we've shared a few threads there, you and I.

As John Lennon remarked about the cover to Two Virgins, with he and Yoko in the buff:

"What's all the big deal? It's just me prick." To which certain wags were known to respond . . . "Such a big deal about so small a concern."

DR