The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Easter, a Christian celebration will be happening with Good Friday at the end of this week. The Italians have managed to stir the Vatican by creating a statue of Jesus in chocolate (which apparently will be ate later) and calling it, "My sweet Lord" What are your feelings on this subject and why do you feel that way? Some people even go as far to say its a commercial for the chocolate factory!

Me, I don't think Jesus should be depicted as anything less than what He was, and I feel this is making a mockery of Him.

Try not to think of it as sacorlidge. It is more of something that will promote your religion. It is going to get media coverage. Don't you think that The Vatican weighed the options before giving approval?

Seeing as the entire Christian holiday has become hardly more then a commercialized event, it doesn't surprise me that someone would create a chocolate Jesus.

It is my understanding that the My Sweet Lord sculpture is not to be eaten. It was going to be on display in the United States at a Hotel Gallery. However, since the uproar, the gallery has decided not to show the piece.

The creater of the sculpture is a Catholic and was trying to illustrate something more than just appearance, and wanted to add an extra dimension to his work by providing a familiar taste into the art.

Latest from CNN on the subject is that Americans in New York objected to the statue going on display. (Jesus was naked) and so the exhibition was cancelled. And, to the best of my knowledge the Vactican were not consulted prior to the statue being revealed.

It is interesting to see the commercial aspect popping up, shouldn't Easter be more of a festival?

For those of you interested in reading about "My Sweet Jesus" Click here to see a news article about it.

The second Hallmark gets a hold of a holiday it is no longer pure as such.

I am not sure how I feel about a naked chocolate Jesus.

As a piece of art reflecting upon the already mocked celebration of Easter, I find it provocative, certainly a good symbol by which to raise again discussion over the nature in which we (as a society), celebrate religious holidays.

I can see why it is offensive, since from many other angles, it could be seen as a commercial exploitation in itself- ironic, no?

All holidays SHOULD be a festival for those who believe the faith to honor and celebrate. Unfortunately the holidays of predominantly Christian following have turned into more of a commercialized spectacle during which the companys vie for the consumers money and people attempt to see who can spend and receive the most outrageously priced and generally unneeded gifts.

One of the reasons that Jesus was displayed naked in this sculpture was the idea that perhaps the did not crucify people clothed. I cannot recall the actual verse, but I recall from Catholic school religion class that after he was on the cross, the soldier divide Jesus's garments amongst themselves.

Cosimo Cavallaro's My Sweet Lord was just trying to portray a different image albeit a very accurate one that is described in the Bible.

The body and blood of Christ, warm and easy like Sunday mornings, I have to hand it to you, Sevenn you are a talented writer indeed =) I had thought if they had not of made the statue nude then possibly there would be less objection about this object de art, as in even crucifixion crosses Jesus is depicted dressed in a loin cloth.

I understand how Christians can be offended by the nudity as even in Churches through-out the world, the Lord is always modestly covered. My goodness the Nun’s would faint if he wasn’t!

oh, and thankyou Meeper for posting the link to that news story :) and your complimentary style of writing Stabb :)

Emaerald,
I actually completely agree with you about that. I think the artist would have had a much easier time with things if he had chosen to "modestly cover" that area of his sculpture. That being said, I think that annoys me, it IS an accurate rendering even according to the book of Matthew. However, I think the concept of nudity went by the way-side long ago in the Judeo-Christian tradition with God's command for Adam and Eve to clothe themselves. It seems to have somehow inextricably linked nudity to shame.....but ok, ok, I digress; I agree with you about the consequences the choice made.

for some this will be see as a honour, a worship, a beaty, for other it iwll be seen as a humiation, a moquerie, a provocation. This is all depending on the ey of the one looking, that is where it all stands.

Yea, thanks Sevenn =) but overall it is good feeling to see people being different and not going with the flow too. I had never heard of that artisit before, so the publicity he has pulled of for himself about this controversy must be immense. Maybe that was what he sent out to achieve.. who knows?

Why even argue about it or even watch the news about it? No matter what anyone does theres always going to be a big controversy about it..... Okay so theres people out there that find it offensive & others that dont, big deal. I dont find it offensive b/c thats how Jesus was depicted in the bible. If people are going to get all riled up about that then why not get annoyed & aggravated about the Butter Jesus or Jesus Toast? I dont hear anyone moaning about different pieces of art thats been painted or sculpted, so why this one?

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/OHMONjesus.html
http://blacktable.com/gillin041202.htm

I too feel that making a mockery of Jesus is unwise. I am now pagan, Wiccan, but was raised Catholic. Mixing Christian and pagan is a cruel joke. I get nothing out of it.

I thought Jesus said "eat of my body". This just makes it more appetizing!

Me personally, I swore an oath to separate myself from anything to do with the Church, Christianity, and the like.

It doesn't mean that I look down upon it in any way, just my own gig.

It's also possible that they DID it just for publicity. Sure lots of people hate it, but look at the buzz it created!

there is buzz... but no public gallery showing of the piece. My guess is the artist would rather be able to show his work than get critiziced for a piece that hardly anyone has seen with their own eyes.

The only thing I find offensive is the fact that the man received death threats from showing a sign of his faith.

*I'd like to say other things, but afraid they might be considered "bashing" so I'm stopping here.*

Whoopse.. realized the link up there didn't mention the death threats.

Another article..

Personally most celebration that is based on religion expecially the Chirstian/ Catholic faiths seem to be focused more about the comercial aspects then it is about Jesus (which is what majority of the major holidays are about). Just like Thanksgiving has been turned into something positive and forgetting about what truely happen to the Native Americans. It just seems like people ignore certian parts and enjoy other parts.

To tell you the truth atleast it is Jesus then say the "Easter Bunny". It makes it a hell a lot more about the holiday then a Bunny jumping around giving hiding eggs. I never understood that.

I have no direct problem with it and if people do then don't take part in it.

That is just my opinion.

It seems to me that this is an accurate portrayal of the crucifixion of Jesus. I can understand why it would cause such a fuss; the christians are so anti-nudity and pro-conservatism that they are upset. They have the right to opinions like everyone else.

Perhaps the artist did it this way because he knew of the controversy it would bring. And with all controversies comes a certain degree of notorious fame.

I think being notorious brings more fame that any other kind of publicity.. I mean everyone likes a bad guy, umm right?

I really don’t see this on being a mockery of anything.
An artist, who just happens to work with food, decided to put his talents to work. If you go by the belief of God created all than, the gift was given to him by god.

I am sure his task a very difficult one. With the time and patience it takes to even make the smallest items, he went and made a statue. If he really wanted to make a mockery of Jesus wouldn’t he have made it out of something more controversial? Maybe something along the lines of a statue made of toilet paper or a few good bibles. That would sure scream mockery.

Big deal he doesn’t have on pants in the statue. Make a chocolate leaf slap it over “lil Jesus”. It’s a shame how people are so highly offended by the beauty of a human body.

There are so many other things that people come out with that should be looked at as a mockery. For instance I was reading AOL news and someone started to bottle water that was blessed by a Minster. They were selling it as drinkable holy water.

Drink Your Sin Away!

I honestly think chocolate Jesus is a good idea to sell at Easter time. If you choose to teach your children about the story of Easter, what could be a better way then to have a delicious prop to do so.

In a quote by Eddie Izzard:

So, yeah. So the Pagan religion had very big festivals, remember, on Easter and Christmas. The Christian religion came along and had very big festivals, at Easter and Christmas. Jesus died on one and was born on the other. ( doubting sounds ) ‘Cause Jesus I do think did exist, and he was, I think, a guy who had interesting ideas in the Gandhi-type area, in the Nelson Mandela-type area, you know, relaxed and groovy; and the Romans thought, "Relaxed and groovy?! No, no, no, no, no!" So they murdered him. And kids eat chocolate eggs, because of the color of the chocolate, and the color of the... wood on the cross. Well, you tell me! It's got nothing to do with it, has it? You know, people going, "Remember, kids," the kids who're eating the chocolate eggs,
"Jesus died for your sins."
"Yeah, I know, it's great!”
“No, no no, it's bad, it's bad!”
“ No, it's bad! It's very bad. It's terrible! Whatever you want, just keep giving me these eggs."

At least you would be using the real deal instead of a “stand in” for what the meaning truly is.
As far as it being commercialized, yes it is. Then again it seems that as time goes on, holidays are becoming more and more so. If he really wanted to make it seem not so much about that, he should have chosen a different time. But, they say timing is everything. I guess with this, it’s not an exception.

i agree with countess moon
i don't see it as a mockery of anything
i think it's clever
if anything easter it's self is a mockery
taking the holiday for fertility and mixing it up with jesus just to make it 'acceptable'
of course it's the same thing with christmas, so i guess it's not surprising

I agree that this is a bit . . . iffy. Making a replica of Jesus out of chocolate and then eating it later seems rather blasphemous in my opinion.

Raveneyes... Just for clarifications. They are not eating the sculpture. That was never the artists intent.

I wasn't meaning that the STATUE was going to be ate.

I was saying something of the sort would be a nifty learning tool.

I am sure I heard on the news that was to be melted and distributed once Easter was over... I must of been hearing things?

i think that since we (everyone) are trivializing easter as a whole (ya know bunnys and marshmallows) then why not a choco-jesus. to me it seems like it should either not be an issue at all or else most of easter should.

Wow.. I had forgotten that line from Eddie Izzard. Thanks for sharing it with us, CountessMoon.

I think too many people are making too much of a deal about this. "My Sweet Lord" was merely a way for a man to show how strong his faith was.

It really is sad how reactionary this whole thing has been.

He didn't want any images of him, and to do this is like worshipping an idol....

I have actually seen Cavallareo refute the claim of eating the sculpture on an interview. Plus if that was the plan, I'm sure every news story would have included it.

As for CountessMoons post, I think eating a chocolate Jesus would be awkward. But she has a point that alteast it would insert Jesus back into how everyone celebrates Easter. Now i'm not sure anyone would have the guts to give out Jesus body as food minus of course the priests handing out Jesus's body and blood for communion.

I think that there i nothing wrong with the actual statue. but I also think that it is wrong to Reject it because he's naked.

Just wondering how big of a stir it would cause if it had been a pagan goddess or god of fertility made of chocolate to celebrate the pagan fertility festival of Eostara,

Given the subjective nature of art, I’d much rather see a chocolate depiction of Jesus than say one from chicken poop.
Sure the nudity was bound to set the conservatives off but death threats are going a bit far. Where is the love and forgiveness?
All the christian holidays have been commercialized beyond description by a world fueled by commercialism. Only individuals can choose to celebrate without the "store bought" necessaries.
As to the graven image stuff I don’t see this as being that different from a painting by another artist.
The exhibition should continue with a simple warning of what it depicts, then let the public decide if they want to see it or not.
Had it been of a pagan god or goddess, we would never have heard of it at all.

I read the article and immediatly thought of Bill Hicks bit about Easter.

I don't see an intent to mock Jesus in the artists representation and his being nude shouldn't be an issue among adults.

Liked the linked authors remark about the subtlety of using chocolate to show Jesus in a non-white representation.

darkwalker....I agree that by technicality this would be idol worship...and so is every crucifix the world over....
and emmy..
"as in even crucifixion crosses Jesus is depicted dressed in a loin cloth."
this is true, but also in every crucifix the nails are through his hands, and they have since proved the historical record that romans crucified through the wrists..not the hands as the hands would not hold the bodies weight...but after all this time and so much artistic license used..it's unlikely they would change their images now, and well the loin cloth imagery.....we are dealing with a society which has a problem with the human form on display

I agree with darkwalker....this chocolate statues is kind of like an idol and the Bible specifically instructs people not to make idols

where on earth did chocolate and eggs and bunnies come from as a thing for easter anyway. This is supposed to be about Jesus dying on the cross or whatever for us then being resurrected no where in the bible does it mention that people searched for eggs and got chocolate on that day. The meaning of the day was lost before it started when holidays started blending cause no kid really knows what jesus has to do with easter.

If this is not sacrilege look at it this way: they are denying all the sadness, matrydom done and pretending to have a good time when they should remember There is a time to be silly and a time to be serious

We are very fortunate that in todays world that many of us can appreciate art for what it is - art. Once the shock value is over on some pieces, we see things as what the artist meant for us to see. Well, sometimes. Most of us do not take personal offense. There will always be some people that do take things personally. It doesn't matter who they are.

Back in the ancient land there was a law that stated that you could not make anything that represented anything in the air, land and sea. I'm paraphrasing here. This was to prevent idol worshiping. But it also totally killed off any Jewish art that could have, and in my opinion, should have developed. I'm personally glad that artist now can create anything that they feel they need to express themselves. Personal expression over rules the safe guard that was in place so long ago.

WWJD? Well, being in that time, he would not be pleased with the idea of seeing himself being on the cross, chocolate or not. This was not in his teaching. But he did play with children and I'm sure he had a great sense of humor. He would have said the same message as he always did, 'let it be and move on, it's not important.' I say. "Ditto." But also enjoy it for what it is - art. We are lucky that we have it.

First off I DON'T like the title my sweet lord... chocolate is not sweet, it is bitter... It is the adding of the contaminant sugar that makes it sweet.

Also, there are the implications of the use of Chocolate farmed using West African slave labour.

Whether or not this particular factory uses Chocolate from a slave owning farm in the Ivory Coast or not, the chances that the cheap ass chocolate you will wind up buying will contain it.

And if it does not, there is a pretty good chance that the sugar was made using some form of labour that was if not slave labour, very much close to it.

I'm not against chocolate... good chocolate has many health benefits... provided it doesn't have growth hormones from the milk or uses excessive slave labour.

I also disgusted with the Idol worship... It seams to me that Easter is about the resurrection not the crucifixion...

Wouldn't an empty tomb be more appropriate, or some representation of his ascension?

Alltogether the Idea is offensive. Art made form chocolate aside, I have not bothered to read the artical to find out if it is a mold or if it is carved or whatever... I am not sure how artful the entire project may be.

In reguard to nudity, it seams probable that jesus would have been naked on the cross, if just for the simple fact tha tthe state was trying to humiliate him and kill the sect... hense the importance of the religeons reserection 3 days later.

Maybe that was an idea from the chocolate fatories and they figured that some christians don't buy into the whole easter bunny thing and they figured that if they made it into a cross or jesus more people would buy it

Unlike in the past, when people had at least some shred of common sense and celebrated the holidays, we now use them as an excuse to bicker. Making a 200 pound replica of a chocolate Jesus will not be counted against you. Making a rather large "controversy" out of it to save face will. Needless to say, the solar storm cannot come soon enough. The resulting pandemonium will be nothing short of entertaining.

The bible doesn't say anything against about depicting J.C in any form so I don't see why the Vatican should even bother to fuss about it, after all their duty is to keep to keep to the traditions to re-enact the fact as they are believe to have happened.

Without rushing to judgments these could have made in bona fide as in the fabrication of cards & other memorabilia, just because this product is edible it shouldn't be made to symbolize the eating of Christ or something, even the suggestion is ridiculous in my opinion.

I highly doubt these have been made to mock the holy communion & even so if they were, thats only for God to judge.

As they say in Ireland, and in my opinion I think the artist was taking the "Mick" out of Jesus. I believe the Christians it offended, has every right to have their concerns addressed. Presently I am at work but will write more later when I return home.

I do agree, it is simple matter really, Italy is a highly religious country & people are passionate about their believes there (Remember it's our neighboring country).

I am not saying the Vatican shouldn't express their opinion on the matter, I just said they shouldn't even bother to because even if the product is seen as being offensive even if not intentionally intended to be so it would be simply shunned with the result that these would simply disappear.

I believe Christians as you & I would simply speak for themselves with actions according to what they think is acceptable or not but as I mentioned & ironically enough, it wouldn't be right to be rushed for judgments.

I dont think that the Italians are setting a very good example at all for any followers of the Christian faith as they are the centre of that belief and them also being a highly religious country seems to add yet more controversy in the matter....

I dont know if any body knows.but i can remember something similar happening about 10 -15 years ago.a chocolate jesus being sold,only this one was filled with jam,like to represent blood.this caused a stir.but iguess it is sacriligious.and to a response by sacred.In the bible jesus said when he appeared to his disciples after his resurrection,go forth and multiply.i think the easter bunny represents that.like the term breeding like rabbits.

Wow i havent heard about this yet. i dont know what to think about it. Honestly.

I dont think its blasphemous. We arent worshiping it. im sure it's been blessed as well, so eating it would be like taking communion, only sweeter.

I agree that its not right but the meaning of Easter has changed so much over the years. But so has Christmas and many other religious holidays. Easter is all about candy now a days. this could be the churchs way of keeping the younger generation involved in the holiday.

(is it creme filled lol)

well not so much the churchs way, but the artists.

My understanding of this controversy is not the fact that the depiction of Jesus was done in chocolate, but that it showed his genitals. Now, I personally don't see anything wrong with that, as Jesus was a man (unless they aren't telling us something O.o), and well....the penis is part of that sex. I don't know...maybe I am just missing something.

i dont see a problem with the fact that hes naked. nudity wasnt such a big deal back in those times. many artists did a lot of nude sculprtures. and it wasnt about there being a penis it was about the form of a body in its purest state. SO why not have him naked? Society has too much of an affect on the world.

i think the showing of the genitals shouldn't be a problem. but my view on censorship is that there shouldn't be any.

I agree king, but if u dont censor then that will bring up many other things... like porn and all. so even tho i dont agree with censorship i think in certain cases it might be ok. the government jus takes EVERYTHING too far and too serious.

heres a pic adn article about it. the statue doesnt have long hair.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/30/chocolate.jesus.ap/

where they done with it? or where they going to put a wig on or have it as some other candy

Sweetlord indeed...LOL Oh come on now thats a different context! It's Art, a sculptor!.. its been done countless times on marble, stone, wood & only God knows on how much many more materials (pun intended)... What's so wrong with chocolate I say then?! oO!

I was just watching the telly and saw this statue.And it wasn't the Italians, it was a gentleman who I believe is Italian.Not the group hun.
I personally think people take religion way too seriously anyways. I understand what your postion on this, but I disagree.
I cannot directly quote him, but to paraphrase him.He said it was his way of celebrating his religion.And it was not meant in a disrespectfull way at all.But th en it all depends on one's outlook on things.To each his own, tis a free country.

How about a chocolate Yendor.. we could pass him around ;)

See, then Adora would hold a big, messy press conference and it would be the same stuff all over again! ;)

*giggles* chocolate jesus day...

Well when I think about it, it only makes sense that he would have brown, afro-like hair, seeing as Jesus did come from an area of that ethnicity. I think that that simple aspect is also a BIG part of this controversy due to the fact that Jesus is usually portrayed (from what I've seen) as a pale, soft haired man.

As far as this "sweet lord" BS... it's just a statement. Jeesie Creesie. No one should take art personally to the extent some are with this particular instance. Donahue is just a big *insert profane language here* and should really just have his mouth duct-taped shut. Let Italy have their fun!

Are they implying that he was from New Orleans? (it had to be said)

Actually KGlitterous, I just read through you previous response to this and I have to agree with you somewhat, even though I think this is not worth so much attention. Easter is exactly what you said it is, a celebration of the resurection of jesus, and all this giant "sweet lord" is doing is promoting the gluttony of chocolate for the kiddies!

It’s merely artwork, nothing more. There is no reason for the Vatican to get in an uproar about it. Would they throw a fit if someone created a bronze statue of Jesus or one made of stone? How about all the little pewter statues you can buy at just about anywhere? I can understand the Vatican being in an uproar if they break off pieces and say “The chocolate of Christ given for you”, as they eat it. But unless that happens it’s not worth raising a fuss over.

i think easter and al holidays have been made into selling days what i mean by this is they dont even call it the holiday it was or do anything realationg to the holiday like easter persay they made a statue of jesus shouldnt have happened to touchy and this is supposed to be spring equinox taken by symbols like the egg and the rabbit all symbols of fertility and new life yet they construn all these things together and think its there holiday because they call it something different im pagan so i think all these things the way i do for that reason and its just a comment on my part laters

I would so bite his ears off first

the catholics are not happy unless they are complaining, thats all they ever do (the vatican i mean)

like who gives a hoot if someone makes a statue of jesus out of chocolate....its the thought that counts, ppl seem to forget that nowadays

ur right dark winged. it seems as tho the vatican always has something to complain about.

I try to be diplomatic in things, this thread was never meant to be an excuse to rant about the Catholic faith or any other Faith, or beliefs. My apologies.