Sex & God & Rock & Roll
With each passing day, I appreciate the role of editors more and more.
The title seems to missing any awareness of the thin tradition of the theologia crucis.
Well evidently not bigger than the album cover or he wouldn't fit on there, would he?
tinythinker, that is very close to being a bottom reference. I am placing you on watch.
Thank you, Daniel. I was hoping that somebody would offer some serious theological engagement with this claim. Unfortunately, scholars of your standing are few and far between at OCICBW... (see tinythinker's comment).
Good point, tmtim. Even if the picture on the cover is a scaled down image of a sheet of graph paper of cosmologically massive size, Jesus is still smaller than the graph paper. And we are left with the question of who or what created the graph paper?
Oh come on, I was all ready to go with a Bonobo dockers link or a Twiggy comment but felt compelled to look up what the heck the "thin tradition" was. I actually started to think. Is that what this blog is coming to?I found a review of a book on theologia crucis (http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4393_4410.pdf) which gave at least a vague idea of what it was about but no concise, compelling explanation. And I spent a whole .235 seconds Googling it.
But with reference to TheMe's comment, Jesus (assuming that is Whose silhouette in fact is supposed to be on the cover) IS bigger than the cover, to the extent of His right wrist and hand and left big toe. And if the graph paper is limited to the album cover, then He's bigger than that also. The pencils, however, may suggest a possible problem. wv = =sairlson(motto of Corlumbus)
I wanted to get to the bottom of things so I also checked out the description of "thin tradition" on Weir's blog. I've seen what he describes all over in what I've been reading, I just didn't realize it had its own name. Of course I like to read religious material from people who deal with the poor, suffering and disenfranchised on a regular basis, those in the trenches as it were, so that might explain the bias in my exposure.
tinythinker, please go and join David and JCF in the naughty boys corner.
Aha, Mr Pedantic! As the graph paper overlaps the album cover on all four sides there is no way of knowing how big the graph paper actually is. Whilst, unless Jesus has an enormously long right arm, we can deduce that he is only slightly bigger than the album sleeve.But you are right about the pencils. If this is a scale image of a piece of graph paper that covers all that exists, those pencils should be visible in the night sky through a cheap pair of binoculars.
If that graph paper is 1/2"squares, than Jesus is a little over 6" - that's hardly bigger than many I've seen...just sayin.
Eschewing the low-hanging fruit of comments about 'size queens', I would point to more vexing and G-rated question, to wit, if Jesus IS bigger than everything then how did they fit him in the tomb?
Renz and Tim. Good to have you mathematicians on board.
Theme - fabulous.PS Unless Point of Order is a lady I notice the wimmins have steered well clear of this one.I'm just saying.
Obviously he is bigger than a Hummer driver who lives on fast food and high carb snacks. Would you like an 84 ounce monster-thirst-buster communion soda with that Mega-Quadruple-Burger deep fried communion wafer? Now with extra servings!It is just proof that we've Americanized Jesus now. A super-sized Savior for a super-size people.
I see a possible big problem here Dennis, maybe even another civil war. Are Texans going to be able to except that their bigger than everything Jesus is the same size as every other states' bigger than everything Jesus?
Cathy, is there something about your gender that you're not telling us?
I've met Cathy and she certainly looked like a wimmin. Not that that is a guarantee of authenticity.
I notice there is an asterix. There always seems to be one these days.
Not just any asterix, Boaz. That happens to be the biggest asterix in the world ever.
Hah! Call that guy a pedant!We must divide the question. If by "Jesus" they mean God, the One Holy Undivided Trinity, and "bigger" refers to size, then the whole is a category mistake, since God is not a thing and fills no spatial volume (though God does permeate the universe)and so such a comparison is just wrongheaded. And if "Jesus" refer to Jesus, a five-two (1.5 m) man, the claim is obviously false. So. we must conclude that "bigger" refers to something else: importance, power, and the like (or the tendency to overlook faults in others). Then, in one sense, God qualifies, although, in the affairs of the physical universe, God's effective power is limited to our cooperation nowadays. And Jesus, on the other hand, by undergoing crucifixion (see later), place himself at the bottom of the lowest, the least and the lost, so out of the running for big altogether. Never throw a record jacket into a theology pit.What, by the way are we to make of the archeological claim that the Romans of the first century did not use the cross beams and that the Greeks had it right all along -- it was a post, not a cross?
Paul (A.) - in Australia all the sheilas are called Bruce, and all the men are called Bruce too, though none of them mind if you call them Sheila. So, either way, you know?
Jesus is All, and is in All, without Him was no thing made that was made, so . . . bigger than everything that has form, i.e. the phenomenal universe, but not bigger than everything in that He merely contains the potential for anything and everything, including a boat so big He couldn't throw it over a hedge. But, you need a fat Jesus to balance out the two skinny ones when they dance on a pin, which brings us to the classical theological dilemma stated eloquently by Aquinas as Who dat say who dat when I say who dat?wv - "hedent" - a gum chewed by the self-indulgent.
Dennis, So what're trying to say here ? ::looks defensive:: I AM in shape. 'Round' is a shape...