Only a chocolate Jesus

Post by **Mercury Hat** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:01 pm

TRI wrote:
Mercury Hat wrote:Plastic Jesus > Chocolate Jesus.

I don't care if it rains or freezes
Long as I got my plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car.
Through my trials and tribulations
and my travels through many nations
with my plastic Jesus I'll go far.
Oh I don't care if it's dark or scary
Long as I got Magnetic Mary
Riding on the dashboard of my car.
I feel I'm protected amply
Got the whole darn holy family
Riding on the dashboard of my car.

There's also one with the twelve apostles.
(Oh I don't care if it bumps or jostles....)

Awesome. Awesome to the max.

I love crazy old folky songs.

Tellurider · Post by **Tellurider** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:26 pm

Linkara wrote:LIES! FILTHY LIES FROM PEOPLE WHOSE NAME START WITH "T!"

Give yourselves unto the white chocolate! Repent unto its creamier sweetness!

You wanna take this outside, punk? Let me go get my brass knuckles.

When I say "contains cacao beans" I mean "cacao beans are an ingredient," they are of course processed. And then they add stuff like sugar and milk. And you can watch it on the History channel. Man I miss the History channel. And the Discovery channel too.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:53 pm

But it does contain cocoa butter, which comes from the cacao bean.

It's basically cocoa butter, dry milk, sugar and usually some lecithin and vanilla to make it more palatable. Milk chocolate contains all of those things plus cocoa solids (usually added in the form of coca liqueur), and dark chocolate contains them all except the dry milk, baking chocolate also omits the sugar.

(I too watch the History and Discovery channels.)

Leperdoctor · Post by **Leperdoctor** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:57 pm

Intermission!!

For the dude that made the chocolate jesus...lol.

Actually, was reading the paper today and they interviewed him over the phone. He was interrupted once and had to hang up, and when they asked him about it, he said something about people trying to break into the basement area where he had stored the chocolate jesus. He was convinced it was a hardcore religious fanatic come to smash it to bits...or something like that.

Also, the artist is weird...considering some of the other works he did...<.<

Risky wrote:i never got the connection between bunnies and chocolate either.

That's because easter is a pagan holiday, not a christian one. Someone on another site put it in a very humorous fashion: Silly christians, bunnies are for pagans!

And...now that that intermission is over...back to the chocolate debate!

Heard a rumour that the less ingredients chocolate has in it, the more 'real' it is. Which means dark chocolate is 'real' and candy bars in the store are simple fake chocolate (confection or something) because of the zillions of ingredients.

Laemkral · Post by **Laemkral** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:09 pm

Chocolate must contain milk, vanilla, and sugar. I've eaten cacao. As in pure, raw chocolate. It's bitter as HELL! I only nibbled a little and it was almost inedible. An entire bar of this stuff would be absolutely vile to eat.

As far as "pure" chocolate, dark chocolate is closer to what is considered good chocolate than a Hershy's bar. Truthfully, just eat whatever you like. It's all good and the very nature of chocolate means that it can never be pure. Even the ancient Aztecs, who were among the first to eat chocolate, had to add in other ingredients so it could be eaten.

By the by, dark chocolate is very good with a nice red wine.

Leperdoctor · Post by **Leperdoctor** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:19 pm

Ewwww, red wine. <.< Milk goes so much better with chocolate. Especially dark chocolate. ^^

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:58 pm

I once read a long article in the food section of the paper (I was trapped in the bathroom) that explained why the chemicals in chocolate and the chemicals in red wine actually act to dull the taste of either food when combined.

But they ended it by basically saying: hey, it's wine and chocolate, if you're having fun who cares if you're getting every last nuance of flavor?

As for purity... pure chocolate is like pure hotdog: there is no such thing.

I disagree about it having to have milk in it 'though. I like my chocolate high in cocoa and dry milk just gets in the way.

But then I've been known to eat unsweetened baking chocolate.

Tellurider · Post by **Tellurider** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:11 am

I've had the 99% pure cocoa (or whatever) swiss chocolate, and yes, it IS bitter as hell. 99% is a little too pure for me to enjoy.

85% or 90% is good though.

I like my chocolate like I like my coffee - dark and bitter.

White chocolate still isn't chocolate though, I don't care if it does contain cocoa butter, if it doesn't have the actual "solids" in it then it ain't chocolate. It's like saying something is a chocolate chip cookie because you followed the recipe for the dough on the back of the chocolate chip package but didn't put any chocolate chips in it.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:45 am

Yeah, that's basically it: it's has most of the ingredients of chocolate, and it's certainly similar to chocolate. But it's not chocolate.

Similarly the cocoa solids/liqueur/powder isn't chocolate either, anymore than chocolate chips are a chocolate chip cookie.

Tellurider · Post by **Tellurider** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:49 am

Are... are you agreeing with me or mocking me? I can't tell.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:58 am

Agreeing.

(I get that a lot, actually.)

Tellurider · Post by **Tellurider** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:07 am

That's cool then. I wouldn't want to have to beat you up.

I have this weird violent streak that I try not to act on too much. That's War's thing anyway.

Maybe Chocolate Jesus is really about letting go of violence and embracing sweet, sweet salvation, followed by a massive sugar crash.

TRI · Post by **TRI** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:27 am

If that means eating my share of 200 pounds of chocolate you can count me in.

EDIT:
The thought plickens!

Most gullible website ever.

Killbert-Robby · Post by **Killbert-Robby** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:06 am

New life aim : eat 100% pure chocolate.

Leperdoctor · Post by **Leperdoctor** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:51 am

TRI wrote:If that means eating my share of 200 pounds of chocolate you can count me in.

EDIT:
The thought plickens!

Heh heh, they're blaming gay people for the defacement. *shakes head*

Nervous Spy · Post by **Nervous Spy** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:26 am

Killbert-Robby wrote:New life aim : eat 100% pure chocolate.

That should be easy to accomplish, since any kind of chocolate is 100% chocolate to begin with. 100% cocoa, now that's something else ... but "100% cocoa chocolate" would be a contradiction in terms - it would be just cocoa, not chocolate. You should be able to emulate the sensory experience, however, by preparing Nesquik with tonic water.

The Neko · Post by **The Neko** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:36 am

Actually, I've picked up some chocolate in Paris that has something like 85% cacao in it. Which is the highest I was able to find. That's pretty freakin' dark chocolate. Milk chocolates have something like 30% and most Darks tend to have somewhere in the 60-range.

Garneta · Post by **Garneta** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:21 am

Nervous Spy wrote:You should be able to emulate the sensory experience, however, by preparing Nesquik with tonic water.

Nyke · Post by **Nyke** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:30 am

leperdoctor wrote:
TRI wrote:If that means eating my share of 200 pounds of chocolate you can count me in.

EDIT:
The thought plickens!

Heh heh, they're blaming gay people for the defacement. *shakes head*

Yeah, the writer of that article is such a dick.

Crazy Chris · Post by **Crazy Chris** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:12 am

A chocolate Buddha would taste better.