Chocolate Jesus exhibit canceled after uproar

[simonsebs]

Chocolate Jesus exhibit canceled after uproar

I got the feeling people are upset because it shows Jesus naked. Although, according to history, that was the way he was crucified. Alot of people lose their minds when a piece of art has nudity.

However, on another message board I'm apart of one of the members suggests people are upset because its made out of chocolate. Thus suggesting the fact that Jesus was black.

[nakedjohn]

He was black, was he not?

[nudetone]

Unfortunately, I think the uproar has to do with the second point you made. I remember a couple of years ago some people in NJ freaked out because there was a performance of "Jesus Christ Superstar" and the role of Jesus was played by an African American actor. I can't believe in this day and age this would be a problem.

[nudetone]

Originally posted by nakedjohn:
He was black, was he not?

Don't forget about Moses.

[MJ_KC]

Even if he wasn't black, he was probably a lot darker skinned than I am. The people of that part of the world are not fair skinned Caucasians after all.

[gamblefish]

Originally posted by nudetone:

quote:

Originally posted by nakedjohn:
He was black, was he not?

Don't forget about Moses.

Moses married a black woman.

And Jesus wasn't black, He was bluish-green, or, more correctly, as the Bible states, He was "an Azure-green".

[foux003]

Originally posted by nakedjohn:
He was black, was he not?

Your Jesus can be any color you chose. I don't belive that he was crucified on a cross, but a stake with his arms extended above his head.

[nudeM]

It's just the fact that he was depicted as being naked. Jesus has never been seen as such, and when the church saw this, at an art museum no less, it caused an uproar. As far as race, it wasn't even a factor. I also don't believe it was that fact that nudity was the issue, but rather Jesus was chsracterized as such.

[foux003]

There was plenty of nakedness in the day of Jesus. It was prety much a common thing back then.

[foux003]

One time while I was in Chinatown, NY NY. There were posters of Jesus naked on a cross. He had a womans breast and a vagina. No one semed to give a care about that, they were every where.

[David77]

Originally posted by nakedjohn:
He was black, was he not?

Jesus was a Jew, and Jews typically are not black, but sometimes have slightly darker skin, eventhough they are caucasian.

Incidentally, some "black skinned" persons are caucasian, such as the indiginous people of Australia and people of India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people

[puffledud]

Until the Middle-Ages Christ was depicted nude on the cross. Michaelangelo even has a life-size statue somewhere in Italy (I forget where) that has Christ naked on the cross in front of a church. I'm not sure exactly why everyone is upset over a chocolate Jesus except maybe that Easter bunnies are usually chocolate.

Dave

you'll have to email me if you want to know my personal views.

[Naturist Mark]

What outraged the Catholic League was the intention of allowing the public to eat the chocolate at the conclusion of the exhibition.

You see that is tantamount to eating the flesh of Christ in a form of symbolic cannibalism. Clearly blasphemy ... what?

oh

nevermind.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by puffledud:
I'm not sure exactly why everyone is upset over a chocolate Jesus except maybe that Easter bunnies are usually chocolate.

Not everyone is upset. The whole "controversy" over this was fomented by William Donohue, head of the innocuously-named Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, which seems to exist primarily as a vehicle for him to get his face on television and rant hysterically and obnoxiously about whatever he decides constitutes an affront to the sensibilities of the world's Catholics on any given day. And then he proceeds to try to bully the offending party into submission.



UW

[NakedGary]

Link to article 3/3/07 Chocolate Jesus Show canceled