Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Does God Have A Sense Of Humour?

Recommended Posts

In light of recent events and that every (all) religious fundamentalist nutjobs like to claim they are doing God's work and taking vengeance in their name that you have in some way offended God, therefore does God have a sense of humour?

God is supposedly omniscient and omnipresent but does God have a sense of humour?

Does God enjoy satire, especially badly drawn cartoons?

If God is that offended why is their no Godly smiting of those concerned, why have mere "mortals" intervene?

So does God have a sense of humour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

god, who is omniscient, wasnt very clear in what he said to the various profits ( about 5000 of them I gather)...

God needed people to interpret what he said.

and he told 5000 different stories to 5000 different profits.

sometimes god has mates.

and god has no clue what the devil is up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many different individual gods, you can't generalise like that. Some, like Loki, almost define themselves by their warped humour. I would say Yhvh is the most dour, humourless one of them all, so stuck up and self important, thinks he is the only one! And thinks he made everything! Funny, yes, but sense of humour, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the premise of the book 'The Name of the Rose', if I remember rightly. The 'McGuffin' was some ancient text which showed that Christ (as God incarnate) had a sense of humour. If true, it would mean that people could laugh at God and He would lose His authority, or so the monks thought.

If you are a fundamentalist, and believe that God is the supreme being, God of Gods, Lord of Lords and Only Ruler of Princes (as the Prayer Book has it) then why should you worry what people say about Him? He cannot be harmed. Sticks and stones, and all that.

If your conception of God is, like a lot of non-fundamentalist religious people, a symbol of deep truths about life and humanity, that cannot be put into words, then it is almost your duty to laugh at simplistic anthropomorphic conceptions of Him. It's a sort of healthy pricking of the pomposity of some religious symbolism and there's no real harm in it, in my view. We might laugh at the Crucifixion, like in Life of Brian, but would many of us laugh at the concepts it represents - self-sacrifice, love in the face of betrayal, etc - probably not. When people start laughing at concepts like lthose that's when I'll start worrying, not when they laugh at silly cartoons.

That said, I'm looking at this all from a post-enlightenment, educated western perspective. I can see sort of see why people from superstitious cultures would be offended by jokes about God etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the premise of the book 'The Name of the Rose', if I remember rightly. The 'McGuffin' was some ancient text which showed that Christ (as God incarnate) had a sense of humour. If true, it would mean that people could laugh at God and He would lose His authority, or so the monks thought.

My understanding is that laughter, even smiling, was viewed by the church fathers in the middle ages as being an expression of the base, physical aspect of man's nature. Whenever laughter is mentioned in the Old Testament it's invariably associated with the wicked and the foolish. The New Testament was lighter, particularly before the Council of Nicaea took all of Jesus' best knob gags out.

As I recall, St Augustine was against humour in principle. Aquinas was OK with occasional moments of restrained light-heartedness and joviality, but nothing that was too funny. 1980s era BBC sitcoms basically, a couple of times a week, tops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many different individual gods, you can't generalise like that. Some, like Loki, almost define themselves by their warped humour.

I believe this has come up on OT (Off Topic, not Old Testament) before, but the Trickster archetype is widespread and goes back as far as we know...

wiki: Trickster

I quite enjoy the fuzziness of the archetype concept. Does the Trickster exist as a discrete entity? Is it one facet of a greater consciousness? Is it an expression of human nature? A by-product of the way existence is wired?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that laughter, even smiling, was viewed by the church fathers in the middle ages as being an expression of the base, physical aspect of man's nature. Whenever laughter is mentioned in the Old Testament it's invariably associated with the wicked and the foolish. The New Testament was lighter, particularly before the Council of Nicaea took all of Jesus' best knob gags out.

As I recall, St Augustine was against humour in principle. Aquinas was OK with occasional moments or restrained light-heartedness and joviality, but nothing that was too funny. 1980s era BBC sitcoms basically, a couple of times a week, tops.

God in the Old Testament was a tad on the aggressive side smiting humanity on a whim with the flood and Sodom/Gomorrah then it appears God had a complete personality change and became loving/kind etc... in the New Testament. It's almost as if its a different entity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God in the Old Testament was a tad on the aggressive side smiting humanity on a whim with the flood and Sodom/Gomorrah then it appears God had a complete personality change and became loving/kind etc... in the New Testament. It's almost as if its a different entity.

There was a time when thinking like that would get you a crusade up your rear end

The idea of two gods or principles, one being good the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good god was the God of the New Testament and the creator of the spiritual realm, as opposed to the bad god, whom many Cathars identified as Satan, creator of the physical world of the Old Testament.

On the subject of humour, I can't remember who said it but the expression 'There is no such thing as a joke' has always struck a chord. Jokes are usually at someone's expense. I recall some of the classical Greek philosophers arguing that humour was an expression of hubris and a sense of superiority. I can't recall if self-deprecating humour got a pass

edit: the tradition of self-deprecating Jewish humour might support the suggestion that the God of the Torah is OK with people taking the p1ss, as long as it is out of themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You had me at duck

I am conscious that I have just attempted humour at the poor platypus' expense. Mind you, I'm confident that were they to develop sufficient sentience & self-awareness that they would make self-depricating jokes about their patently ridiculous appearance too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am conscious that I have just attempted humour at the poor platypus' expense. Mind you, I'm confident that were they to develop sufficient sentience & self-awareness that they would make self-depricating jokes about their patently ridiculous appearance too.

They'd laugh at nothing so much as at those denialist European zoologists gulled by their own scepticism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God in the Old Testament was a tad on the aggressive side smiting humanity on a whim with the flood and Sodom/Gomorrah then it appears God had a complete personality change and became loving/kind etc... in the New Testament. It's almost as if its a different entity.

Strict Christians or those who believe in an anthropomorphic conception of God would say that's because Christ's death was a 'full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction' (as the BCP puts it) for the sins of humanity. His death meant God stopped being an angry shouty man with a beard, (perhaps like Brian Blessed, if he was Jewish) and instead became a more softer Christian beardie, perhaps like Rowan Williams.

Those with a more metaphorical conception of it all would probably point to the fact that the idea of God in the NT is different because Graeco-Roman thought, with its more rational and philosophical concepts of deity, began to combine with Judaism, most notably in the case of St Paul who was originally a pagan Roman rather than a Jew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.