I dibs the ears.
…Do-lang-do-lang-do-lang
Did they do the stigmata with raspberry sauce?
I dibs the holes in the hands. I’m on a diet.
I’m seriously wondering about this artist:
Compared to all that, a milk chocolate Saviour seems almost mundane. At least when it starts to go bad it won’t stink to high heaven (haw!).
Yeah, but with a price tag of $587,000
Heh, there are probably nastier materials this sculptor could have used (although I do rather tend to find it odd to use foodstuffs in artworks - waste of food, starving millions, sort of thing).
But why wouldn’t all that nice chocolatey theobromine be good enough - “food of the gods” and all that. 
(Not for dogs, though).
Anybody else thinking that there must be somebody somewhere being less than pleased about the fact that people might eat even chocolate “Easter” bunnies?
I have got a lot of chocolate today, probably quite enough to commission a sculptor to make some Discworld-type “Small God”, but no sculptors will get their hands on it, and I even doubt whether there will be any left to take to my parents tomorrow.
I’ve seen that article in the news. :dubious: 
I’ve seen WAY more offensive Jesus-related stuff, so I’ve been going, ‘Wha…?’ every time. I don’t get it. Unless you’re icked by the idea of edible Jesus, but then that takes out things like the Virgin Mary cheese sandwich. 
Wow, there are choccies here to offend just about every theist.
If I were a sculptor, I don’t know if I could handle the pressure of deciding just how big Jesus’ dick ought to be.
I want pics! (I googled, but I couldn’t find any.)
He shouldn’t ought to have used chocolate.
Shoulda used Divinity Fudge.
Speaking as a Christian, it doesn’t offend me personally. But speaking as an old man who has lived a long time in this country, my question is who would not have known that there would be a tidal wave of outraged offense?
http://www.gjsentinel.com/featr/content/shared-gen/ap/Feature_Stories/Chocolate_Jesus-image.html
Warning: Might Be Offensive To Some (and funny as hell in a hand basket to the rest)
Still don’t get the church’s issue with it. Are they afraid of some priests singing “Sometimes you feel like a nut, Sometimes you don’t” between masses?
(to be fair, many of the ‘Christian’ competion would be singing “Jesus, the great American chocolate bar…” :rolleyes: )
The whole idea was to show how suffering and inhumanity have nothing to do with chocolate treats, right? Faith vs Cadbury or something like that. Besides, as the story goes, its not like the Romans were modest or respectful of him while killing him. “Sergio, cover up that genitalia! There are women & children here. No, After you finish breaking all his bones & hammering rail-road spikes through his wrists…”
I can’t think of anything more offensive than eating the body of Christ (unless it’s drinking his blood).
I can well understand the church finding this offensive. The artist’s intent was evidently irreverent, and the depiction of Christ’s genitalia is a bit of a shocker. The timing of the exhibit to coincide with the Easter season makes the whole thing seem like an exercise in mockery or, at the very least, frivolity.
Symbol, symbols, symbols!
Just because an internationally recognized symbol is obsessed over by a particular group doesn’t mean that symbol has become a bodily appendage of theirs anyone else who manipulates that symbol is guilty of inflicint bodily harm upon that group.
People need to learn to differentiate between that which is symbolic and that which is substantive.
Squeaky Wheels on SYMBOLS
I see why they are pissed. It is “one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever.”
That covers a lot of ground.
Yeah… I read that one and thought “somebody throw this guy to a lion.”
I usually don’t like this sort of art, but there are two recent controversial pieces of art I actually like - this one, and “The Proper Way to Hang a Confederate Flag.”