Since people on the forums keep violating the TOS by actively debating conversing about and otherwise disrupting a non-theology posting (in the Games & Humor Category none the less), I have created this to properly facilitate the discourse.
Does God have a sense of humor? Let it be debated conversed about HERE.
As we ARE made in his image, AND we were given the capacity to feel humor. I say that speaks volumes and anyone arguing against it is arguing against himself.
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol II:
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: Chapter V.—On Laughter.
Early Church Fathers Index Previous Next
Chapter V.—On Laughter.
People who are imitators of ludicrous sensations, or rather of such as deserve derision, are to be driven from our polity. 1416
For since all forms of speech flow from mind and manners, ludicrous expressions could not be uttered, did they not proceed from ludicrous practices. For the saying, “It is not a good tree which produces corrupt fruit, nor a corrupt tree which produces good fruit,” 1417 is to be applied in this case. For speech is the fruit of the mind. If, then, wags are to be ejected from our society, we ourselves must by no manner of means be allowed to stir up laughter. For it were absurd to be found imitators of things of which we are prohibited to be listeners; and still more absurd for a man to set about making himself a laughing-stock, that is, the butt of insult and derision. For if we could not endure to make a ridiculous figure, such as we see some do in processions, how could we with any propriety bear to have the inner man made a ridiculous figure of, and that to one’s face? Wherefore we ought never of our own accord to assume a ludicrous character. And how, then, can we devote ourselves to being and appearing ridiculous p. 250 in our conversation, thereby travestying speech, which is the most precious of all human endowments? It is therefore disgraceful to set one’s self to do this; since the conversation of wags of this description is not fit for our ears, inasmuch as by the very expressions used it familiarizes us with shameful actions. 1418
Pleasantry is allowable, not waggery. Besides, even laughter must be kept in check; for when given vent to in the right manner it indicates orderliness, but when it issues differently it shows a want of restraint.
For, in a word, whatever things are natural to men we must not eradicate from them, but rather impose on them limits and suitable times. For man is not to laugh on all occasions because he is a laughing animal, any more than the horse neighs on all occasions because he is a neighing animal. But as rational beings, we are to regulate ourselves suitably, harmoniously relaxing the austerity and over-tension of our serious pursuits, not inharmoniously breaking them up altogether.
For the seemly relaxation of the countenance in a harmonious manner—as of a musical instrument—is called a smile. So also is laughter on the face of well-regulated men termed. But the discordant relaxation of countenance in the case of women is called a giggle, and is meretricious laughter; in the case of men, a guffaw, and is savage and insulting laughter. “A fool raises his voice in laughter,” 1419 says the Scripture; but a clever man smiles almost imperceptibly. The clever man in this case he calls wise, inasmuch as he is differently affected from the fool. But, on the other hand, one needs not be gloomy, only grave. For I certainly prefer a man to smile who has a stern countenance than the reverse; for so his laughter will be less apt to become the object of ridicule.
Smiling even requires to be made the subject of discipline. If it is at what is disgraceful, we ought to blush rather than smile, lest we seem to take pleasure in it by sympathy; if at what is painful, it is fitting to look sad rather than to seem pleased. For to do the former is a sign of rational human thought; the other infers suspicion of cruelty.
We are not to laugh perpetually, for that is going beyond bounds; nor in the presence of elderly persons, or others worthy of respect, unless they indulge in pleasantry for our amusement. Nor are we to laugh before all and sundry, nor in every place, nor to every one, nor about everything. For to children and women especially laughter is the cause of slipping into scandal. And even to appear stern serves to keep those about us at their distance. For gravity can ward off the approaches of licentiousness by a mere look. All senseless people, to speak in a word, wine
“Commands both to laugh luxuriously and to dance,”
changing effeminate manners to softness. We must consider, too, how consequently freedom of speech leads impropriety on to filthy speaking.
“And he uttered a word which had been better unsaid.” 1420
Especially, therefore, in liquor crafty men’s characters are wont to be seen through, stripped as they are of their mask through the caitiff licence of intoxication, through which reason, weighed down in the soul itself by drunkenness, is lulled to sleep, and unruly passions are roused, which overmaster the feebleness of the mind.
Footnotes
249:1416
Or, society.
249:1417
Matt. vii. 18; Luke vi. 43.
250:1418
[Our author is a terrible satirist; but it is instructive to see Christianity thus prescribing the minor morals, and banishing pagan brutality with holy scorn.]
250:1419
Ecclus. xxi. 20.
250:1420
Odyss., xiv. 463–466.
https://st-takla.org/books/en/ecf/002/0020269.html?utm_source=.com#:~:text=Ante-Nicene%20Fathers,xiv.%20463–466.
J.
A review on Trueblood’s Claim.[Quaker]
Trueblood’s Claim (Speculative Rhetoric)
“Could Jesus have responded to his destiny with laughter? Could he have met the absurdities of life not only with prayers and tears, faith and obedience, but with a joke…? The idea may verge on blasphemy, but the doctrine of the incarnation prevents us from ruling it out.”
Language is conditional and hypothetical (could, may, prevents us from ruling it out).
No appeal to Gospel narrative, Greek verbs, or patristic authority.
Moves from incarnation theology to imaginative possibility rather than textual assertion.
Frames laughter as philosophically allowable but not demonstrated.
“Nowhere laugh, nay, nor smile; no one at least of the evangelists has mentioned this… but even when He looked on Jerusalem, He wept.” (Homily XV on Matthew, PG 57.231)
Statement is historical/textual, not conditional.
Notes explicit Gospel evidence: weeping, groaning, sorrowful; silence on laughter is meaningful.
Purpose is ethical and spiritual formation, not speculation.
“Laughter must be disciplined; uncontrolled laughter disturbs the soul’s harmony.” (Paedagogus II.V, PG 8.440–445)
Focuses on human laughter as moral behavior, not Jesus’ laughter.
Presents Christ as the model of measured speech and composure.
Grounded in pedagogical principle, not imaginative theology.
Excessive or uncontrolled laughter is incompatible with vigilance and prayer, following Christ’s example of humility and attentiveness. (Longer Rules, Question 17, PG 31.1017)
Again, the text does not affirm Jesus laughed, instead underscores sobriety and mission-focused joy.
Provides a concrete guide for Christian living anchored in Christ’s revealed life.
Trueblood moves from incarnation → “could Jesus have…?” → speculative humor, imaginative, conditional, rhetorical.
Fathers move from Gospel narrative → “the evangelists do not record laughter” → ethical instruction, sober modeling, text-governed certainty.
The Fathers never infer beyond what Scripture explicitly presents; they do not use hypothetical reasoning to assert possibilities.
Trueblood’s exercise is philosophical/theological imagination, not historical exegesis.
The Fathers treat Scriptural silence on laughter as significant, emphasizing the Son’s mission as grave and redemptive.
Any claim that Jesus laughed, joked, or engaged in gallows humor cannot be supported patristically or textually; it is purely speculative.
Thus…
Trueblood’s rhetorical questions and playful speculation about Jesus laughing are not in tension with orthodoxy only because they remain hypothetical, but they cannot be cited as historical or patristically supported evidence. The Fathers consistently anchor Christ’s joy, sorrow, and teaching in Gospel narrative, and silence on laughter is read ethically and missionally, not as an invitation to imaginative reconstruction.
J.
You’re not the first to be scandalised by laughter. In older times laughter, especially in church, was much frowned upon. St John Climacus (+649) wrote, “I have seen people who were proud of their ability to invent stories and make people laugh. They totally destroy in their hearers the habit of mourning.” He had three pieces of advice for when you come across such funny people:
Shalom.
J.
I thought these were supposed to be discussions not debats? I mean i could be wrong but however i feel is only my opinion, not facts. Is discussing and debating the same thing? is one frowned apon more than the other? And why does this topic not have a ? mark but the other one does? Should’nt they be switched around? I am being serious about my questions im not being sarcastic or funny, so please if someone would answer with serious answers it would be much appreciated
Key difference being the word argue. (As to argue a point.)
I also would point out…
@Brakes
Joe opened this discussion by asking whether YHWH has a sense of humor, a question that already imports anthropomorphic human categories onto the Holy Theos in a way Scripture itself does not authorize.
My response was simply no, not as a denial of divine joy or goodness, but as a refusal to project creaturely psychology onto the Creator, and for that position six or seven of my posts were removed, with this one likely to follow as well.
So be careful brother.
J.
Just be careful brother, we are in for a bumpy ride.
Stay strong.
J.
At least you are standing up for your convictions, and for that I commend you brother.
J.
I opened up with a rhetorical question, indicated by my answering it immediatly after asking it. As debate on a theological issue was wanted by others (not the original poster, as indicared by it - being the orignal thread - being posed in Games & Humor) , your argument should have been posted in a new thread just for that so as to respect the original post.
I have no intention of flagging proper theology IN the Theology category. AlI ask for is mutal respect. The Categories, Theology,
Games & Humor, Prayers, Etc. are set up the way they are for a reason and each one has a description by it to inform posters and respondants what each category entails.
Now, as I have said, I have no problem debating a Biblical subject, backed up with Biblical facts. Nor do I have an issue reading your point and opinons. But as I said, we are made in Gods image, so for us to have the capacity to feel humor must mean God has one as well. I stand by that as you have not convinced me with anything out of the Bible of God not having a sense of humor.
The burden is not on me to justify my position to you, Joe. It is clear that we do not read Scripture the same way, nor do we approach the text with the same hermeneutic or theological restraints, and that difference, not a lack of explanation on my part, is what lies at the heart of this disagreement.
J.
You initiated a theological debate but it’s not on you to justify your position? Please, other than at kingdom halls, where do the do that at? Are we not beter than that Brother?
I read the Bible from the standpoint that it is Gods words, written through his chosen conduits. There is no interpretation problem on his part, but on mans. I go by what the Bible says. Not by op-eds of man. Why would I go elsewhere for the word, when God has kindly written it for me.
So when God says “Let us make man in our own image”, how else do I take it. He didn’t say “Let us make man in our own image, except lets give ONLY MAN a sense of humor”. In the over 200+ translations on biblegateway do I not see that.
By “our image” does God actually mean “a poor bootleg lacking in my PERFECT image”? Is that what you mean?
You do realize that in attempting to provoke a reaction from me, you are overstepping the very rules you are holding me to.
With that said, I’m stepping away from your thread and your topic.
J.
As I said to KPuff, there is nothing to be apolgetic over. We should all, as Brothers and Sisters in Christ, be setting an exmple by our actions and words. When one can’t even follow the TOS for the Forums, how does that look to others. (Especially the new people who I’m trying to help attract and retain.)
I’m sorry you see my actions that way. I’m not trying to elicit any provoked reaction. I’m am trying to give you an open, polite, respectful discussion on wether God does or does not have a sense of humor, to which you in fact initiated by going in to an improper area to do it. I respectfully leave this open if you change your mind and wish to use only God’s words to define God’s character.
This is where you err Joe, but I’ll let you figure this out.
Gen 1:26 And G-d said, Let Us make man in Our tzelem, after Our demut: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon ha’aretz (the earth).
So what is the tzelem and demut?
Most don’t want to consult commentaries, or any lexical aid, so how would you read this?
Just asking.
J.
You refer to the Jewish principle that people are all created b’tzelem Elokim – in the image of God?!
Most don’t want to consult commentaries, or any lexical aid because those are not God’s words, but mans. And man is, and thereby mans works, flawed.
I can offer you this though.
Genesis 21:6 “Sarah said, 'God has made me laugh; all who hear [our good news] will laugh with me.” -AMP
Are you saying we are NOT created in the image and likeness of God?
J.
Nope I’m just saying it in plain English and not Hebrew.
b’tzelem Elokim = in the image of God?! (The - was to be a =, so see, human error.)
But what about Genesis 21:6?
You are not answering my question…[The-was to be a=…human error?]
Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) make man in Our image, according to Our likeness [not physical, but a spiritual personality and moral likeness]; and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, and over the entire earth, and over everything that creeps and crawls on the earth.” [Psa_104:30; Heb_1:2; Heb_11:3]
-AMP
Gen 1:26 And G-d said, Let Us make man in Our tzelem, after Our demut: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon ha’aretz (the earth).
OJB
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר H559 vai·Yo·mer said אֱלֹהִ֔ים H430 E·lo·Him, And God נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה H6213 na·'a·Seh Let us make אָדָ֛ם H120 'a·Dam man בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ H6754 be·tzal·Me·nu in our image כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ H1823 kid·mu·Te·nu; after our likeness וְיִרְדּוּ֩ H7287 ve·yir·Du and let them have dominion בִדְגַ֨ת H1710 vid·Gat over the fish הַיָּ֜ם H3220 hai·Yam of the sea וּבְע֣וֹף H5775 u·ve·'of and over the fowl הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם H8064 hash·sha·Ma·yim, of the air וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ H929 u·vab·be·he·Mah and over the cattle וּבְכָל־ H3605 u·ve·Chol all הָאָ֔רֶץ H776 ha·'A·retz, and over all the earth וּבְכָל־ H3605 u·ve·Chol every הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ H7431 ha·Re·mes and over every creeping thing הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ H7430 ha·ro·Mes that creepeth עַל־ H5921 'al- on הָאָֽרֶץ׃ H776 ha·'A·retz. upon the earth
Gen 1:26 And Elohim said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man according to [image our], and according to likeness!
Only image, not likeness?
And if you do affirm likeness, can you explain this for me since you don’t consult lexicons?
How would you do it Joe?
J.