My "sweet" lord.

buhubs · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:13 pm

Saw this on new york 1 earlier, here's the whole story.

Apparently a sculpture of Jesus Christ, made entirely out of chocolate, raised a hub-ub of disagreement. While Edward Cardinal Egan says this act of display is offensive to catholics and this lead figure of the catholic religion and that it is something that will not be forgotten, the manhattan artist Cosimo Cavallaro and the gallery say it was not intended to offend anyone. He calls this sculpture of Jesus on the cross "my sweet lord" and invite people to take a bite out of it before taken down on easter sunday.

It's been called the "485,000 calorie messiah", and catholics are calling this a cheap publicity stunt that is offensive to millions of people and said that it wouldn't be done to any other religion. Where do I stand? I just think of it as an artist's deep expression and just a big hunk of chocolate, as many other people have similar opinions. Once again a classic case of some social subject versus religion, as so many people have a deep belief in their gods it's still not an excuse from losing a touch with reality.

TELL WHAT YOU [s]ATE[/s] THINK!

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:28 pm

Sounds to me like the Catholic church is trying to find an excuse to be victimized. It's a sculpture. It's ART. Art has the tendency to offend people, and offending someone should not be considered a crime. Why should we lock someone up for hurting little Johnny's feelings or making Mary Beth cry? Everyone has the right to be offended, IMO...it might help people eventually overcome this childishness of taking everything so seriously. Moreover, the Catholic church getting in an uproar over what they call a "cheap publicity stunt" will only give it more publicity, which is what I think they WOULDN'T want.

As for the work itself, I could see it as an interpretation of the secularization of the holiday, and an artist's attempt to bring the focus back to the holiday's Christian roots. But hey, that's just my interpretation of it, because all art is subject to individual interpretation. That's what makes art so great.

One thing I wonder, though...why are they getting so offended? Is it because of the medium (chocolate), or because the sculpture shows Jesus' wee-wee?

ChickenLeg · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:10 pm

PianoManGidley wrote:

As for the work itself, I could see it as an interpretation of the secularization of the holiday, and an artist's attempt to bring the focus back to the holiday's Christian roots. But hey, that's just my interpretation of it, because all art is subject to individual interpretation. That's what makes art so great.

Amen, brotha.

Shippinator Mandy · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:57 pm

I think it sounds delicious, myself.

buhubs · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:05 pm

Yah, If I can I'm gonna take my bite out of it.

Didymus · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:10 pm

I'm not sure what the real problem is here. Medieval icons sometimes showed Jesus naked, although it later became customary to have a cloth or something draped over his manhood for the sake of modesty. But when the icons did show it, it was for the sake of communicating that he is truly man, a very important doctrine of the Church.

As for the medium, chocolate, who cares?

Marshmallow Roast · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:14 pm

I don't see a single difference between this and making a Jesus sculpture out of wood, metal, porcelain, duct tape, or anything else, except that you can eat it. And hey, that'll just attract more attention.

I don't see why they would see this as anything other than a GOOD thing.

Also, thought: It would be really awkward to get a bite of, well, that particular place.

PieMax · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:49 pm

we should have wine, bread, and chocolate for communion. the chocolate can be his love... yeah. love.

Inverse Tiger · **Posted:** Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:59 pm

There is no more relevant place for the word "sacrilicious" than this thread.

My first interp was the same as PMG's: a statement on the commercialization of Easter. Even if it's not that, so what? Also, PMG, your suggestion that this could have something to do with our society's irrational body discomfort: not sure if that's true in this case, but I agree with your sentiments.

Rusty · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:07 am

I think it's awesome.

ramrod · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:13 am

As a Catholic, I truely don't find this offensive. I think it's awesome that the artist put his time and effort to create something so awesome.

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:33 am

I love, also, that he wants people to actually eat parts of it. "This is my body--eat this, in rememberance of me." Hehe.

ramrod · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:38 am

PianoManGidley wrote:

I love, also, that he wants people to actually eat parts of it. "This is my body--eat this, in rememberance of me." Hehe.

Best Eucharist ever.

And that right there definitely got the Pope mad at me.

Linz · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:39 am

I'm quite religious myself, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with the chocolate sculpture. The artist said that it wasn't intended to be eaten, and the chocolate was simply symbolism for the nature of Christ. Nothing is wrong with it being nude, it is even stated in the Bible that he was naked when put on the cross.

Anyway, peoples' big problem seems to be the fact that the piece is made from chocolate. I say who cares? Whether it's made from marble or chocolate, it's still a beautiful sculpture, and an amazing work of art.

Also, did anyone see the artist's argument with Bill Donohue on CNN?
I'm surprised that Bill guy is president of the Catholic league, I'm 15 and I can debate and actually get my point across better than him

The guy used childish comebacks, it was absolutely hilarious. :cheatgrin:

Fun stuff..

bwave · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:43 am

For a religion that believes that some water is holy, a lot of people sure do make a big deal when someone makes a substance in the shape of jesus.

I want a bite of that thing.

Goatface · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:14 am

I've never wanted to eat Jesus more than now.

But seriously, I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, it's a sculpture of Jesus, yeah, and it's chocolate. So what? I don't see it symbolically as anything; I figure the guy wanted to make a sculpture of Jesus, and also make it out of chocolate. I figure that if I had the chocolate and the talent, I'd do the same thing.

One downside, however, it that lickmyjesus.com was wrong when they said he was grape-flavored in the FAQ.

The Joe · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:53 pm

I think that if an artist took that long to make the thing, there must be some kind of reasoning behind it other than "I'm gonna get publicity!"

putitinyourshoe · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:19 pm

CHOCOLATE IS VERY DISRESEPECTFUL. or something like that.

i don't get it (why people are actually mad about it). chocolate is just as awesome as clay or wood. I certainly can't see anything other than the medium that people are upset about either, unless the (ocasionally frightening) crucifixes at churches are going to go down with Choco-Jeez.

buhubs · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:57 pm

Marshmallow Roast wrote:

I don't see a single difference between this and making a Jesus sculpture out of wood, metal, porcelain, duct tape, or anything else, except that you can eat it. And hey, that'll just attract more attention.

I don't see why they would see this as anything other than a GOOD thing.

Also, thought: It would be really awkward to get a bite of, well, that particular place.

What? The finger?

Well, a lot of people may think that, I don't think anyone is going to actually getting near that area. Might be put next to Napoleon's particular area, it's put on display. Can I get an S-I-C-K?

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:32 pm

bwave wrote:

For a religion that believes that some water is holy, a lot of people sure do make a big deal when someone makes a substance in the shape of jesus.

I want a bite of that thing.

Perhaps if it was an accidental sculpture of Mary instead of a purposeful one of Jesus, the Catholic Church would be tripping over itself to praise it...

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:49 pm

[size=200]B[/size]uhubs wrote:

TELL WHAT YOU [s]ATE[/s] THINK!

Cut it out.

Anyways, this sounds like fun. I'd take a bite out of the messiah, since we take a bite out of him and a drink of him at church anyway.

Didymus · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:10 pm

Wait! I KNOW what the problem is now! It's that they made it out of chocolate. And by doing so, they're implying that he's black! *is totally offended* uh, that's a joke, people.

buhubs · **Posted:** Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:26 pm

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:

[size=200]B[/size]uhubs wrote:

TELL WHAT YOU [s]ATE[/s] THINK!

Cut it out.

Care to give me a reason Mr. vague? On how this annoys you or is unwanted py people reading the post?

Didy made a racist post, we should burn him on a stick!
But seriously, I can't find a reason how this would be offensive, but the catholics say that people wouldn't do this type of thing to any other faiths.

Inverse Tiger · **Posted:** Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:29 am

Well, they canceled it. The guy organizing the show resigned in disgust that it was canceled. Good for him. Also, the quote from the Catholic group spokesperson indicates that the nudity was a factor. Philistines.

Simon Zeno · **Posted:** Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:33 am

This is just one of those things that proves that 90% of all Catholics give the others a bad name.

<.<

>.>

XD

I lol'd.

bwave · **Posted:** Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:36 am

buhubs wrote:

t seriously, I can't find a reason how this would be offensive, but the catholics say that people wouldn't do this type of thing to any other faiths.

Mohammed managed to not get crucified.

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest · **Posted:** Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:09 am

bwave wrote:

[size=200]B[/size]uhubs wrote:

t seriously, I can't find a reason how this would be offensive, but the catholics say that people wouldn't do this type of thing to any other faiths.

Mohammed managed to not get crucified.

Yes, but I would enjoy eating him if he had a Peanut-Butter center.

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:11 am

bwave wrote:

buhubs wrote:

t seriously, I can't find a reason how this would be offensive, but the catholics say that people wouldn't do this type of thing to any other faiths.

Mohammed managed to not get crucified.

But it's still considered a sin in Islam to make an image of him. That's why any pictures with him in it have a veil over his face.

Acekirby · **Posted:** Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:29 am

IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY LENTEN SEASON, THERE IS AN ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY! WE MUST NOT ALLOW THIS TO GO ON, NO MATTER HOW DELICIOUS IT IS!!!

Why must religiously extreme Catholics feel the need to give us all a bad name?

Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest · **Posted:** Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:24 am

Acekirby wrote:

IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY LENTEN SEASON, THERE IS AN ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY! WE MUST NOT ALLOW THIS TO GO ON, NO MATTER HOW DELICIOUS IT IS!!!

Why must religiously extreme Catholics feel the need to give us all a bad name?

Because chocolate isn't in their tastes.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

My "sweet" lord.

Who is online