Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mystery:Does God Have a Sense of Humor?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Undo revision 968185 by RealName (talk))
(Replaced content with ":) :)")
Line 1: Line 1:
−
== Yes ==
+
:) :)
−
 
 
−
He does, but He doesn't intervene with modern times. Tim Tebow's 316 yards is just a coincidence, and there isn't much reason to think otherwise. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 17:55, 10 March 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:If God has a sense of humor, then it seems highly implausible that He would not intervene to enjoy the humor.  Under your view, what would God find funny if not by intervention?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 10 March 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
Obviously, God is infinitely great, a sense of humor is a good quality.  If He was lacking it, He wouldn't be infinitely great.  Therefore he must have not only a sense of humor, but an infinitely great and perfect sense of humor. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 14:04, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
*[[User:FrancisB52|FrancisB52]] 16:01, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Of course God has a sense of humor.  Archbishop Fulton Sheen did an episode on that in his show Life is Worth Living, and you can look it up on YouTube (look for Fulton Sheen Divine Sense of Humor).  Humor is a recognition of the Truth, and pointing that out.  So, of course God has a great sense of humor.  --[[User:Wayfinder|Wayfinder]] 15:57, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== No ==
 
−
 
 
−
== Not applicable ==
 
−
 
 
−
God is not a human being and is above human psychological traits. The "logic" argument appears to create God in the image of man, which verges on the blasphemous. The argument is fallacious: Just replace "sense of humor" with some less pleasant traits, like "Man has to relieve himself regularly in the bathroom. Does God have to go to the bathroom?" Obviously not!  As regards the history argument, you should read the comedies of [[Aristophanes]], written around 400 BC. They are very funny! --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 18:09, 10 March 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:Emotions like humor are not physical.  God surely does have other emotions like love, anger, sorrow, joy, etc., and man has them as well after being created in God's image.
 
−
 
 
−
:Pre-Christian Greek "humor" tends to be very simple, and barely funny by today's more sophisticated standards as developed by the Christian world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:34, 10 March 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Atilla the Hun ==
 
−
 
 
−
I had no idea this guy was a leading political leader! Which elections did he run in? Which party did he belong to? - was it the Democrats? Just joking - this article is supposed to be about a sense of humour. By the way, watch the British comedy 'The thick of it' if you want to fully appreciate political humour. On second thoughts maybe 'yes minister' might be more your style - it's less sweary. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:13, 10 March 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:Politics is a broader concept than [[democracy]].  Or do you think that [[Julius Caesar]] was not a political leader?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 10 March 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Here's the last known clip of Julius Caesar meeting a voter! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvs4bOMv5Xw He he [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:33, 10 March 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
::Of course he was a political leader, but I hadn't realised that Atilla was an atheist. I would have expected him to worship whatever pagan gods the Huns worshipped at the time. Very few non-Christians at that time would have been atheists; or is there a specific reference to support Atilla's atheism?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:33, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Note that Conservapedia's own Attila the Hun article says that he "relied on seers and "gods"".--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:34, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Seriously? ==
 
−
 
 
−
*'''logic''': man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor.
 
−
:''Man, possesses many qualities that God would have no need for, both psychological and biological. Conversely God has boundless abilities that man does not posses. Therefore it's pointless to speculate on qualities God may have based on those manifested by mankind.''
 
−
*'''history''': man's sense of humor improved with the discovery and expansion of Christianity, which indicates their strong correlation.
 
−
:''This doesn't even make sense.''
 
−
*'''politics''': atheistic political figures are known for their lack of a sense of humor, such as [[Attila the Hun]], which suggests that the opposite of God is a lack of sense of humor.
 
−
:''And the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini was a regular barrel of laughs.''
 
−
*'''religious''': the encounter on the road to Emmaus, described at [[Luke_17-24_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Luke 25:13-31]], strongly suggests that God has intervened in amusing ways.
 
−
:''You may have a point with this one, I am sure atheists, theists of other faiths, and non-literalist Christians, find much to laugh at.''
 
−
*'''scientific''': snowstorms have disrupted [[global warming]] conferences; regions that promote the global warming hoax have been subjected to brutally cold weather.
 
−
:''So when God causes record breaking warm winters, are those the jokes that bomb?''
 
−
*'''athletic''': [[Tim Tebow]]'s completion of ten passes for 316 yards, at 31.6 yards per competition, in his stunning playoff victory against the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]], echoed his promotion of [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]].
 
−
:''I wasn't aware that statistical anomalies, commonly known as coincidences, were considered "humor".''--[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:38, 10 March 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
'''Each point is addressed below''':
 
−
 
 
−
*'''logic''': man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor.
 
−
:''Man, possesses many qualities that God would have no need for, both psychological and biological. Conversely God has boundless abilities that man does not posses. Therefore it's pointless to speculate on qualities God may have based on those manifested by mankind.''
 
−
 
 
−
::No, this would deny many other emotions that God sure does have:  love, joy, sorrow, anger, etc., all documented in the Bible.
 
−
 
 
−
*'''history''': man's sense of humor improved with the discovery and expansion of Christianity, which indicates their strong correlation
 
−
:''This doesn't even make sense.''
 
−
 
 
−
::A non-response requires no answer, but humor developed immensely along with Christianity, and arguably did not exist except in a very simple way before Christianity.
 
−
::"[humor]arguably did not exist except in a very simple way before Christianity." - Ever read any Aristophanes? Or Plautus?--[[User:MihailD|MihailD]] 16:41, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
*'''politics''': atheistic political figures are known for their lack of a sense of humor, such as [[Attila the Hun]], which suggests that the opposite of God is a lack of sense of humor.
 
−
:''And the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini was a regular barrel of laughs.''
 
−
 
 
−
::Again, a non-response requires no answer.  Are you claiming something about his sense of humor?
 
−
 
 
−
*'''religious''': the encounter on the road to Emmaus, described at [[Luke_17-24_(Translated)#Chapter_24|Luke 25:13-31]], strongly suggests that God has intervened in amusing ways.
 
−
:''You may have a point with this one, I am sure atheists, theists of other faiths, and non-literalist Christians, find much to laugh at.''
 
−
 
 
−
::That doesn't merit a response either.
 
−
 
 
−
*'''scientific''': snowstorms have disrupted [[global warming]] conferences; regions that promote the global warming hoax have been subjected to brutally cold weather.
 
−
:''So when God causes record breaking warm winters, are those the jokes that bomb?''
 
−
 
 
−
::You have to explain yourself better if you want a response.
 
−
 
 
−
*'''athletic''': [[Tim Tebow]]'s completion of ten passes for 316 yards, at 31.6 yards per competition, in his stunning playoff victory against the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]], echoed his promotion of [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]].
 
−
:''I wasn't aware that statistical anomalies, commonly known as coincidences, were considered "humor".''--[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:38, 10 March 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
::The likelihood of such "statistical anomalies" is vanishingly small.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:29, 10 March 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:::"The likelihood of such "statistical anomalies" is vanishingly small." Well, let's see. A QB is going to throw for some number of yards between 0 and (say) 600 and complete somewhere between 0 and (say) 40 passes. Given how Tebow was used last year, the range is probably much smaller for each, but let's go with that. So the odds of coincidentally completing 10 passes for 316 yards is (at most) 1 in 24,000. Then we'd have to divide that by the number of other verses he's had on his eye black (there are at least two: Proverbs 3:5-6[http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_uf/2009/09/tebow-draws-more-attention-for-eyeblack-messages.html] and Philippians 4:13 [http://www.christianpost.com/news/tim-tebow-explains-why-he-tebows-uses-bible-verses-70824/]). So now we're down to at most 1 in 8,000. We could stop there, but I'd probably divide by the number of NFL games he's started (1 in 571) or at least the number of playoff games he's started (1 in 4,000). I suppose it's open to interpretations, but I wouldn't call that "vanishingly small" and think it's well within the realm of coincidence. [[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:07, 11 March 2012 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
::::Your analysis is interesting, but does not include the small likelihood of the Broncos making the playoffs and defeating America's most (or second most) popular team, the Steelers - and thereby generating the enormous publicity.  That probability alone was probably only 1 in 1000.  Using your 1 in 24,000 likelihood for throwing for 10 passes for 316 yards, the overall probability of what happened is less than 1 in a million - far less than a reasonable coincidence.  The other verses, by the way, do not compare with [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]] in significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:41, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::But the question remains: what is so funny about something being unlikely? I think most people, atheists and Christians alike, would call such a statistical anomaly striking rather than funny. As far as the other examples are concerned: if that is supposed to be God's repertoire, I am afraid He would make a lousy stand-up comedian. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 10:46, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::::Perhaps it takes a good sense of humor to appreciate it.  Some (other than God) do take sports games very, very seriously, but to most people they are a source of entertainment and amusement.  Cal Berkeley's unlikely last-second victory over John Elway's Stanford team in 1981 or 1982, with the repeated laterals on the final kick-off return, was very serious to some (including Elway and the players), but was replayed repeatedly on television for amusement rather than serious news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:21, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::The problem with using this sort of probability computation for this sort of coincidence to determine whether it arose due to chance is that you are doing it ''ex post''.  To borrow an example from John Allen Paulos's ''Innumeracy'', it would be nonsense to look at a bridge hand of 13 cards from a deck of 52, conclude that the probability of that particular hand's having been dealt is less than 1 over 600 billion, and therefore conclude that it must not have arisen due to chance.  Seeing a coincidence and then trying to examine after the fact what the probability would have been for such a coincidence to occur to illustrate miraculous behavior is a classic example of the [[sharpshooter fallacy]].  [[User:GregG|GregG]] 16:00, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
:Andy, I just want to make sure I understand correctly: The duck-billed platypus was designed to amuse us, red autumn foliage was designed to impress us with its breath-taking beauty, Tebow's 316 yard pass was guided to promote John 3:16. Fine. On the other hand, last year's tsunami was entirely due to entropy, right? No humorous message there? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:25, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Seriously? Revisited... ==
 
−
Mr. Schlafly, for some reason you chose to respond to my post to basically state that my post... wasn't worth... responding to... huh? Anyway, to cut to the chase, I'm not sure what's creating this "mystery" for you. The Bible contains several examples of God laughing which, to me, would seem like case closed. So instead of writing an article cataloging God's humor as expressed in scripture, you instead trot out a list of dubious claims. I think the only true mystery here is why you wrote this article. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:06, 11 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Umberto Eco ==
 
−
 
 
−
This is a key question in the novel ''The Name of the Rose'' by Umberto Eco. There is a faction of monks who insist that Jesus never laughed, since if He had a sense of humor it would destroy their particular interpretation of the Gospels. I'd recommend that novel to anyone interested in this topic.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:46, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
:It's been ages since I read that book, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that their argument was based on a flimsy argument from silence.  [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 11:43, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
::Yes I think so, but my point is that some people historically have considered the question of God's sense of humor (or lack of it) a crucial theological question. I doubt Eco made the idea up out of nothing. So this discussion has a fine pedigree.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:04, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Scripture as a guide ==
 
−
 
 
−
1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. Using this as a guide, God's blandest humor is funnier than the planet's most celebrated comedian. Personally, I think it will be challenging to document emotions. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:44, 12 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Critical comments ==
 
−
 
 
−
*'''logic''': man has a sense of humor, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God has a sense of humor.
 
−
:Same logic: man is horny, and man was created in the image of God. Hence God is horny.
 
−
*'''scientific''': snowstorms have disrupted [[global warming]] conferences; regions that promote the global warming hoax have been subjected to brutally cold weather.
 
−
:That brutally cold weather must have caused great discomfort to (and probably the death of) quite a few homeless people, which makes this a sick divine joke. After all, it wasn't their fault that the region they happened to live in promotes the global warming hoax. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:38, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== I don't think it is a mystery of whether or not God has a sense of humor ==
 
−
 
 
−
I don't think it is a mystery of whether or not God has a sense of humor as can be readily seen through this verse of the Bible: "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision." - Psalm 2:4 (KJV)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:12, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
:As always, the Bible is the best source. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 11:37, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
 
−
::There are other reasons to laugh than humor, though. This sounds more like a laugh of defiance.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:43, 13 March 2012 (EDT)
 

Revision as of 23:18, March 13, 2012

) :)
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mystery:Does_God_Have_a_Sense_of_Humor%3F&oldid=968195"