March 03, 2004

• We have a new edition to the Jesus Beanies line. Currently we have a small amount of brown-eyed Jesus Beanies, instead of the original blue-eyed Jesus Beanie. I'm eagerly looking forward to the brown-skinned Jesus. Or, you know, maybe the "Passion of the Christ" edition. Note of Caution: These tags should be removed so young children will not eat or swallow them. It's a shame the tag isn't a communion wafer, then. ... Hey, here's a bit of derailing, but my mind's just wandered. If you're taking communion, and you start choking on the wafer, is it OK for someone to perform the Heimlich maneuver on you? I mean, doing so would expel the body of Christ from you, right? Wouldn't that be bad, or sacreligious?
• Is the beanie anatomically correct? Because I've heard that Jesus was well hung.
• (hey boo: you'd better check canon law on that eucharist question. my guess (as a lapsed catholic) is: the expulsion isn't the problem, it's the catching of the wafer once it is coughed up. can't touch the floor and all that.)
• The mention of the "brown-skinned Jesus" has me itching to repost a link from earlier, but I'll control myself this time. To the derail, performing the Heimlich on somebody choking on a communion wafer probably wouldn't be a problem. In fact, there's a good chance the priest (I thinking roman catholic church here) would run over and either Heimlich you or pull the problem wafer out of your throat with his fingers. After which you'd probably get another try with the wafer and a little blessing or something. I think there might even be a blessing for someone who's choked on a communion wafer in the priest's pocket ritual. On preview: I don't think there'd be a problem with the coughed up wafer. If it actually did get spit all the way out. I think the canon law stuff asumes an environment that's under control. also, I, too, had a comment about the Jesus Beanie being anatomically correct which I've sense removed. Naxosaxur, you're now on my BAD list.
• Mr. Bill is portraying Jesus now?
• I had pictured a skullcap with a little twirling, crucified Christ on the top. Imagine my disappointment.
• SideDish : Thanks for the utterly engrossing link. Churchal law has always fascinated me even as an (devout) atheist. Can. 927 It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration. It's like one sort of balances or cancels the other out... The body and anti-body of Christ, if you will.
• re: canon law, yeah, it is indeed fascinating. years ago, when i was a practicing catholic, one of my close friends had an abortion. i actually went to my priest to see if it would be acceptable for me to comfort and care for her after the procedure. he pulled out this MASSIVE book of canon law and looked it up. he informed me that was, indeed, permissable. sheesh.
• C'mon Mexican: WWJD?
• My image of the Jesus beanie, before clicking on the link, was a skull cap with a crown of thorns around the front.
• goetter, that is absolutely brilliant. Nice link.
• This doesn't warrant its own thread, so I thought I'd post here. Behold, the power of Cheesus.
• that reminds me of an editor i worked with years ago, he was always hoping for a food story to come out of jerusalem so he could write the headline CHEESES OF NAZARETH. heh.
• ARGGGG!!! we're back to the "latest post at the top of the list, making no sense whatsoever" mode...
• sidedish - interesting pair of links. from the comments: "Can. 920 §1 Once admitted to the blessed Eucharist, each of the faithful is obliged to receive holy communion at least once a year." wow, didn't know that law was on the books. guess i'm going to hell, then; i haven't been to a catholic mass since before i was married nearly 6 years ago. oops... and on the original subject, sure, a jesus doll is great if it makes the kids happy. but... uh... why this insistence on depicting jesus as a tall, fair-skinned, blue eyed white guy? wasn't he middle eastern? why then don't we depict him that way - shorter, olive-skinned, short curly hair, dark eyes? you know, like the people you see on news stories from israel. oh, wait, that's right. we don't want people to see jesus and think "he looks jewish." well, he sure wasn't a christian either, as the church wasn't founded until after he was crucified... he wasn't labeled "king of the christians" now was he? revisionist history pisses me off...
• Frogs, why have a black Santa Claus? That's why.
• I, too, would be interested to know if these dolls are anatomically correct. As Leo Steinberg shows in his classic book The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art, Renaissance paintings of the infant Christ often emphasise his genitals, as a way of making the theological point that he is fully human as well as fully God. So if these dolls depict Jesus without a penis, they are (arguably) committing the heresy of docetism. Performing the Heimlich manoeuvre on someone choking on a communion wafer would not be a problem. The Jesuit Karl Rahner (1904-84) argued that Christ's sacramental presence ceases at the very moment the host is placed in the mouth and consumed. So that's all right then. boo-radley, you can stop worrying. (This is a version of the classic theological problem: what happens if the consecrated host is eaten by a mouse? The answer is that an instant reverse-consecration takes place, so that the mouse gets nothing but bread.) Isn't theology wonderful? caution live frogs: no, you don't have to go to hell. Just go to confession.
• Jesus Beanie need a rock in his head to better smite the Unbeliever.
• And when the tykes get a little older they can get their own pair of Christian panties.
• Didn't Mel Gibson have a Jesus beanie that he used to beat the shit out of when he was a kid?
• No, Sully. That's why he had to make the movie.
• f8xmulder, pure brilliance. Bible
• RXR - nice link.
• goetter: Sure, but no-one makes claims about scriptural literalism for Santa. I mean, if you're a liberal Christian who is interested in the spirit of the gospels, then there'd be no problem in representing Christ in the way that means most to you. But if you're like the New Zealand Catholic Cardinal who insists that there can never be women priests because Christ wasn't a woman, surely there should never be European priests (because Christ was a Semitic Jew). If you regard deviation from Leviticus as bad and wrong, surely you ought to be committed to accurate depictions of Jesus, too?
• But f8x, how do I get my own Cheesus? There were no links to buy on the site!
• Rodger, there are a lot of flavors of Christian out there. Your Catholic cardinal almost certainly isn't a member of the blue-eyed Jesus set. For the deepest deep Fundies, seems that the more semitic their Jesus, the better. (I wish I still had my copy of National Lampoon's Son O' God #1 comic, where Jehovah creates the next messiah as "an ever-lovin', blue-eyed hero." Priceless.)