Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by you, the reader. Through voting and moderation we strive to highlight the nerdiest of what's around and provide content that's a little more thought provoking than other sites.
|
Copyright © OmniNerd 2004-2008 OmniNerd uses valid, standards-based markup.
Maximize enjoyment with a standards-compliant browser. |
RSS
My atheism aside... why is this "offensive"?
Forgetting for a moment that I don't believe the mythology, I definitely don't get why this is so offensive.
It can hardly be because the materials used for the construction of the statue are edible. The overwhelming majority of Christian sects include a weekly ritual in which they eat Jesus. For some it's symbolic - the only difference is it's bread, not chocolate. For others, when the priest says the magic words, there's a literal transformation of the foodstuff. Most still think it tastes like bread. Almost nobody thinks it tastes like chicken (or any kind of flesh, for that matter).
Anyway, given a weekly ritual of eating Jesus (symbolically or literally) by Christians around the world, how can a chocolate statue be particularly offensive?
Ah - wait. Now I've read the actual article. The complaint isn't just the chocolate, it's the nudity. No loincloth. Ok, now to me, that just makes it funny.
View Full Discussion