Mak'em laugh or die

Votto

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2012
52,549
50,745
3,605
“If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they’ll kill you.”
– Oscar Wilde

Jesus forgot to make them laugh.

Discuss.
 
Since this is in Religion and Ethics ... Would it be a mistake to skip right to the killing part ... :dunno:

.
 
Jesus forgot to make them laugh.

Discuss.

And what are you going to do? Sit there and criticize what we posit? I think your independent exposition on the matter is due before you critique ours, if that be what you do.

Jesus forgot to make them laugh.

Discuss.
How much laughing does one who is believed to have raised the dead, walked on water, turned water to wine, and fed multitudes from but a few loaves and fish need to inspire? Based one the results Jesus achieved, I'd say not much at all. It appears to me that at the most basic of levels, the notions Jesus endorsed and his means of doing so were quite effective insofar as today Christianity is the most frequently ascribed-to belief system in the world.

In anyone's estimation, regardless of how many people reject Jesus, his philosophical approaches, and/or his dogmatic ideas, no matter how dutifully, aptly or glibly Christianity's adherents embrace and live in accordance with Jesus' guidance, one must still agree that Jesus was and remains, far and away, history's most successful "politician," evangelist, missionary, and social activist.

Did Jesus forget to make 'em laugh? I don't know, but I suspect not and that instead he was deliberately not part comedian when delivering his messages and expounding on his systematic approach to life and the harmonious living of it by and among otherwise disparate people. I suspect that he was "dead serious" and wanted that he and his messages to be perceived as such, which wouldn't surprise me as the preservation of one's "immortal soul" probably isn't, assuming there is such a thing, not a joking matter.

Having said that, I realize humor's role as a rhetorical device, and it's not as though modern day humans invented humor. Inasmuch as Jesus was no "lightweight" as an orator, odds are he was also well aware of the rhetorical power and uses of humor. Why, then, didn't John and the Synoptics bother to share examples of Jesus' use of humor? I suspect that regardless of the extent to which Jesus did or didn't rhetorically employ humor, a number of factors played into those writers' decision not to tell of those instances in which Jesus might have done. I posit that some such factors might include the following:
  • Time and Place -- As far as we know, the Synoptics and other New Testament writers composed their texts decades after Jesus was dead. It's quite possible they just didn't remember any of it. I know I damn sure don't recall the humorous devices used by non-fiction speakers whose lectures and so on that I've attended. I'm hard pressed to think anything different applied to first century writers. After all, the point of using humor as a mnemonic rhetorical device is to get people to remember the point one is making, not the humor one used to make that point.
  • Integrity -- To the extent those writers were not present at the specific events of which they wrote, mere integrity would require them, assuming they saw themselves as telling a tale as accurately and representationally faithfully as possible, they wouldn't deign to include statements they could not be certain were indeed Jesus'.
  • Oral Tradition -- In the first century, much that happened and that was important for people to know about and remember was maintained via an oral tradition. That was all the more so regarding the ideas of an individual who by the authorities was construed, essentially, as illegitimate, seditionist, traitorous and as a would-be usurper of power and instigator of unrest among the polity. Accordingly the chroniclers of the day were not for posterity's sake going to document Jesus' sermons and ideas.
  • Nature of Humor -- The very nature of humor and the proclivities of differing individual's senses of humor make it a rhetorical device that does not easily convey in writing, except where an express rhetorical objective is to be humorous for whatever purpose(s) one might be. That was surely recognized by first century writers just as it is by today's non-fiction writers.
  • Economy -- Durable writing materials were not cheap or easy to come by in the first century. Accordingly, writers had to be as linguistically economical as possible. Remember that, for the most part and when they wanted their words to survive, people wrote on vellum back then. Sure, they could have written the humorous anecdote, but they'd have needed also to explain it for the benefit of readers who didn't share Jesus' sense of humor, be it due to cultural and/or language differences, or some other reason. Well, doing so requires one to use more vellum that does not doing so and instead just succinctly writing the key points and utterances.
So did Jesus forget to use humor? I don't objectively know, but using what I know about a few things to guide my thoughts about the OP's question, I suspect he didn't, and I suspect that whether Jesus did or did not rhetorically use humor, it's unlikely that his having done so would have made it into the tales about his remarks and deeds.
 
Last edited:
Jesus forgot to make them laugh.

Discuss.

And what are you going to do? Sit there and criticize what we posit? I think your independent exposition on the matter is due before you critique ours, if that be what you do.

Jesus forgot to make them laugh.

Discuss.
How much laughing does one who is believed to have raised the dead, walked on water, turned water to wine, and fed multitudes from but a few loaves and fish need to inspire? Based one the results Jesus achieved, I'd say not much at all. It appears to me that at the most basic of levels, the notions Jesus endorsed and his means of doing do were quite effective insofar as today Christianity is the most frequently ascribed-to belief system in the world.

In anyone's estimation, regardless of how many people reject Jesus, his philosophical approaches, and/or his dogmatic ideas, no matter how dutifully, aptly or glibly Christianity's adherents embrace and live in accordance with Jesus' guidance, one must still agree that Jesus was and remains, far and away, history's most successful "politician," evangelist, missionary, and social activist.

Did Jesus forget to make 'em laugh? I don't know, but I suspect not and that instead he was deliberately not part comedian when delivering his messages and expounding on his systematic approach to life and the harmonious living of it by and among otherwise disparate people. I suspect that he was "dead serious" and wanted that he and his messages to be perceived as such, which wouldn't surprise me as the preservation of one's "immortal soul" probably isn't, assuming there is such a thing, not a joking matter.

Having said that, I realize humor's role as a rhetorical device, and it's not as though modern day humans invented humor. Inasmuch as Jesus was no "lightweight" as an orator, odds are he was also well aware of the rhetorical power and uses of humor. Why, then, didn't John and the Synoptics bother to share examples of Jesus' use of humor? I suspect that regardless of the extent to which Jesus did or didn't rhetorically employ humor, a number of factors played into those writers' decision not to tell of those instances in which Jesus might have done. I posit that some such factors might include the following:
  • Time and Place -- As far as we know, the Synoptics and other New Testament writers composed their texts decades after Jesus was dead. It's quite possible they just didn't remember any of it. I know I damn sure don't recall the humorous devices used by non-fiction speakers whose lectures and so on that I've attended. I'm hard pressed to think anything different applied to first century writers. After all, the point of using humor as a mnemonic rhetorical device is to get people to remember the point one is making, not the humor one used to make that point.
  • Integrity -- To the extent those writers were not present at the specific events of which they wrote, mere integrity would require them, assuming they saw themselves as telling a tale with as accurately and representationally faithfully as possible, they wouldn't deign to include statements they could not be certain were indeed Jesus'. Too, in the first century, much that happened and that was important for people to know about and remember was maintained via an oral tradition. That was all the more so regarding the ideas of an individual who by the authorities was construed, essentially, as illegitimate, seditionist, traitorous and as a would-be usurper of power and instigator of unrest among the polity. Accordingly the chroniclers of the day were not for posterity's sake going to document Jesus' sermons and ideas.
  • Nature of Humor -- The very nature of humor and the proclivities of differing individual's senses of humor make it a rhetorical device that does not easily convey in writing, except where an express rhetorical objective is to be humorous for whatever purpose(s) one might be. That was surely recognized by first century writers just as it is by today's non-fiction writers.
  • Economy -- Durable writing materials were not cheap or easy to come by in the first century. Accordingly, writers had to be as linguistically economical as possible. Remember that, for the most part and when they wanted their words to survive, people wrote on vellum back then. Sure, they could have written the humorous anecdote, but they'd have needed also to explain it for the benefit of readers who didn't share Jesus' sense of humor, be it due to cultural and/or language differences, or some other reason. Well, doing so requires one to use more vellum that does not doing so and instead just succinctly writing the key points and utterances.
So did Jesus forget to use humor? I don't objectively know, but using what I know about a few things to guide my thoughts about the thoughts about the OP's question, I suspect he didn't and I suspect that whether Jesus did or did not rhetorically use humor, it's unlikely that his having done so would have made it into the tales about his remarks and deeds.

In context to the OP ... You're lucky that is funny ... :thup:

.
 
Jesus forgot to make them laugh.

Discuss.

And what are you going to do? Sit there and criticize what we posit? I think your independent exposition on the matter is due before you critique ours, if that be what you do.

Jesus forgot to make them laugh.

Discuss.
How much laughing does one who is believed to have raised the dead, walked on water, turned water to wine, and fed multitudes from but a few loaves and fish need to inspire? Based one the results Jesus achieved, I'd say not much at all. It appears to me that at the most basic of levels, the notions Jesus endorsed and his means of doing do were quite effective insofar as today Christianity is the most frequently ascribed-to belief system in the world.

In anyone's estimation, regardless of how many people reject Jesus, his philosophical approaches, and/or his dogmatic ideas, no matter how dutifully, aptly or glibly Christianity's adherents embrace and live in accordance with Jesus' guidance, one must still agree that Jesus was and remains, far and away, history's most successful "politician," evangelist, missionary, and social activist.

Did Jesus forget to make 'em laugh? I don't know, but I suspect not and that instead he was deliberately not part comedian when delivering his messages and expounding on his systematic approach to life and the harmonious living of it by and among otherwise disparate people. I suspect that he was "dead serious" and wanted that he and his messages to be perceived as such, which wouldn't surprise me as the preservation of one's "immortal soul" probably isn't, assuming there is such a thing, not a joking matter.

Having said that, I realize humor's role as a rhetorical device, and it's not as though modern day humans invented humor. Inasmuch as Jesus was no "lightweight" as an orator, odds are he was also well aware of the rhetorical power and uses of humor. Why, then, didn't John and the Synoptics bother to share examples of Jesus' use of humor? I suspect that regardless of the extent to which Jesus did or didn't rhetorically employ humor, a number of factors played into those writers' decision not to tell of those instances in which Jesus might have done. I posit that some such factors might include the following:
  • Time and Place -- As far as we know, the Synoptics and other New Testament writers composed their texts decades after Jesus was dead. It's quite possible they just didn't remember any of it. I know I damn sure don't recall the humorous devices used by non-fiction speakers whose lectures and so on that I've attended. I'm hard pressed to think anything different applied to first century writers. After all, the point of using humor as a mnemonic rhetorical device is to get people to remember the point one is making, not the humor one used to make that point.
  • Integrity -- To the extent those writers were not present at the specific events of which they wrote, mere integrity would require them, assuming they saw themselves as telling a tale with as accurately and representationally faithfully as possible, they wouldn't deign to include statements they could not be certain were indeed Jesus'. Too, in the first century, much that happened and that was important for people to know about and remember was maintained via an oral tradition. That was all the more so regarding the ideas of an individual who by the authorities was construed, essentially, as illegitimate, seditionist, traitorous and as a would-be usurper of power and instigator of unrest among the polity. Accordingly the chroniclers of the day were not for posterity's sake going to document Jesus' sermons and ideas.
  • Nature of Humor -- The very nature of humor and the proclivities of differing individual's senses of humor make it a rhetorical device that does not easily convey in writing, except where an express rhetorical objective is to be humorous for whatever purpose(s) one might be. That was surely recognized by first century writers just as it is by today's non-fiction writers.
  • Economy -- Durable writing materials were not cheap or easy to come by in the first century. Accordingly, writers had to be as linguistically economical as possible. Remember that, for the most part and when they wanted their words to survive, people wrote on vellum back then. Sure, they could have written the humorous anecdote, but they'd have needed also to explain it for the benefit of readers who didn't share Jesus' sense of humor, be it due to cultural and/or language differences, or some other reason. Well, doing so requires one to use more vellum that does not doing so and instead just succinctly writing the key points and utterances.
So did Jesus forget to use humor? I don't objectively know, but using what I know about a few things to guide my thoughts about the thoughts about the OP's question, I suspect he didn't and I suspect that whether Jesus did or did not rhetorically use humor, it's unlikely that his having done so would have made it into the tales about his remarks and deeds.

In context to the OP ... You're lucky that is funny ... :thup:

.
What that I wrote did you find funny? Yes, there was something of a humorous tone in the opening rhetorical question I wrote and my immediate answer to it, but that was the beginning and end of the humor in that post.
 
What that I wrote did you find funny? Yes, there was something of a humorous tone in the opening rhetorical question I wrote and my immediate answer to it, but that was the beginning and end of the humor in that post.

I read the piece ... It is obvious you put thought into it (not uncommon for you).
The funny part is how while reading it, I imagined you to be the type person that would take their brain out and play with it ... Just to get a better look.

.
 
What that I wrote did you find funny? Yes, there was something of a humorous tone in the opening rhetorical question I wrote and my immediate answer to it, but that was the beginning and end of the humor in that post.

I read the piece ... It is obvious you put thought into it (not uncommon for you).
The funny part is how while reading it, I imagined you to be the type person that would take their brain out and play with it ... Just to get a better look.

.
Okay. TY for the clarification.
 
How much laughing does one who is believed to have raised the dead, walked on water, turned water to wine, and fed multitudes from but a few loaves and fish need to inspire? Based one the results Jesus achieved, I'd say not much at all.


plenty have starved through poetic justice alone ... but certainly not the 4th century authors, their coffers are filled to the brim.
 
Jesus forgot to make them laugh.

Discuss.

And what are you going to do? Sit there and criticize what we posit? I think your independent exposition on the matter is due before you critique ours, if that be what you do.

Jesus forgot to make them laugh.

Discuss.
How much laughing does one who is believed to have raised the dead, walked on water, turned water to wine, and fed multitudes from but a few loaves and fish need to inspire? Based one the results Jesus achieved, I'd say not much at all. It appears to me that at the most basic of levels, the notions Jesus endorsed and his means of doing so were quite effective insofar as today Christianity is the most frequently ascribed-to belief system in the world.

In anyone's estimation, regardless of how many people reject Jesus, his philosophical approaches, and/or his dogmatic ideas, no matter how dutifully, aptly or glibly Christianity's adherents embrace and live in accordance with Jesus' guidance, one must still agree that Jesus was and remains, far and away, history's most successful "politician," evangelist, missionary, and social activist.

Did Jesus forget to make 'em laugh? I don't know, but I suspect not and that instead he was deliberately not part comedian when delivering his messages and expounding on his systematic approach to life and the harmonious living of it by and among otherwise disparate people. I suspect that he was "dead serious" and wanted that he and his messages to be perceived as such, which wouldn't surprise me as the preservation of one's "immortal soul" probably isn't, assuming there is such a thing, not a joking matter.

Having said that, I realize humor's role as a rhetorical device, and it's not as though modern day humans invented humor. Inasmuch as Jesus was no "lightweight" as an orator, odds are he was also well aware of the rhetorical power and uses of humor. Why, then, didn't John and the Synoptics bother to share examples of Jesus' use of humor? I suspect that regardless of the extent to which Jesus did or didn't rhetorically employ humor, a number of factors played into those writers' decision not to tell of those instances in which Jesus might have done. I posit that some such factors might include the following:
  • Time and Place -- As far as we know, the Synoptics and other New Testament writers composed their texts decades after Jesus was dead. It's quite possible they just didn't remember any of it. I know I damn sure don't recall the humorous devices used by non-fiction speakers whose lectures and so on that I've attended. I'm hard pressed to think anything different applied to first century writers. After all, the point of using humor as a mnemonic rhetorical device is to get people to remember the point one is making, not the humor one used to make that point.
  • Integrity -- To the extent those writers were not present at the specific events of which they wrote, mere integrity would require them, assuming they saw themselves as telling a tale as accurately and representationally faithfully as possible, they wouldn't deign to include statements they could not be certain were indeed Jesus'.
  • Oral Tradition -- In the first century, much that happened and that was important for people to know about and remember was maintained via an oral tradition. That was all the more so regarding the ideas of an individual who by the authorities was construed, essentially, as illegitimate, seditionist, traitorous and as a would-be usurper of power and instigator of unrest among the polity. Accordingly the chroniclers of the day were not for posterity's sake going to document Jesus' sermons and ideas.
  • Nature of Humor -- The very nature of humor and the proclivities of differing individual's senses of humor make it a rhetorical device that does not easily convey in writing, except where an express rhetorical objective is to be humorous for whatever purpose(s) one might be. That was surely recognized by first century writers just as it is by today's non-fiction writers.
  • Economy -- Durable writing materials were not cheap or easy to come by in the first century. Accordingly, writers had to be as linguistically economical as possible. Remember that, for the most part and when they wanted their words to survive, people wrote on vellum back then. Sure, they could have written the humorous anecdote, but they'd have needed also to explain it for the benefit of readers who didn't share Jesus' sense of humor, be it due to cultural and/or language differences, or some other reason. Well, doing so requires one to use more vellum that does not doing so and instead just succinctly writing the key points and utterances.
So did Jesus forget to use humor? I don't objectively know, but using what I know about a few things to guide my thoughts about the OP's question, I suspect he didn't, and I suspect that whether Jesus did or did not rhetorically use humor, it's unlikely that his having done so would have made it into the tales about his remarks and deeds.
Based on the actual NT, Jesus was one angry, Jew hating dude who tolerated every non-Jewish asshole he encountered.
At least that's what the Roman Empire was stressing.
 
Oh, I don't know. Jesus calling impetuous and impulsive Peter "the rock" is kinda funny. I'm sure the irony wasn't lost on the other disciples. HIs humor was subtle and filled with irony and sarcasm, but it was there. I think you can see it most in his interactions with the scribes and Pharisees. It might have been a little mean-spirited, but it was there.
 
Oh, I don't know...HIs humor was subtle and filled with irony and sarcasm, but it was there...It might have been a little mean-spirited, but it was there.

Considered in that context, I think one can say credibly that Jesus was full of derogatively smug and mocking humor.
Matthew 23:24-27
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.​
Luke 5:31-32
Jesus answering said unto them, "They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."​

Pharisees probably didn't find those remarks funny, but the circumstances giving rise to why they didn't was part of what Jesus was calling attention to. That isn't today seen as a belly-rolling genre of humor of the sort I had in mind when I wrote post #3, but as you aptly note, it is a form of humor. Indeed, it's more akin to the type we routinely get from major network nighttime talk show hosts, Phil Maher, Trevor Noah and SNL, and Jesus' disciples likely saw it that way just as opponents of a sitting POTUS see similar humor delivered by the personalities noted.
 
I agree. Very much so. The average Jew in the days of Jesus hated the Jewish authorities. I can just picture Jesus' followers laughing at Jesus' comments about them.
 
And I also agree that his sense of humor was, overall, smug and mocking. I don't think there's any denying that.
 
It is obvious you put thought into it (not uncommon for you).
Thank you for acknowledging that. Thanks too for reading my posts and doing so often enough that my ID is familiar to you. You didn't have to share that with me; however, I sincerely and respectfully appreciate that you did. Regardless of what others think of one's remarks, it's always nice to know they have read them.
 
Luke 11:50



Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world,





Children say that people are hung sometimes for speaking the truth.




Joan Of Arc quotes





“My plainness of speech makes them hate me, and what is their hatred but a
proof that I am speaking the truth.”
Socrates, Apology





“Not much time will be gained, O Athenians, in return for the evil name which you will get from the detractors of the city, who will say that you killed Socrates, a wise man; for they will call me wise even although I am not wise when they want to reproach you. If you had waited a little while, your desire would have been fulfilled in the course of nature. For I am far advanced in years, as you may perceive, and not far from death. I am speaking now only to those of you who have condemned me to death. And I have another thing to say to them: You think that I was convicted through deficiency of words - I mean, that if I had thought fit to leave nothing undone, nothing unsaid, I might have gained an acquittal. Not so; the deficiency which led to my conviction was not of words - certainly not. But I had not the boldness or impudence or inclination to address you as you would have liked me to address you, weeping and wailing and lamenting, and saying and doing many things which you have been accustomed to hear from others, and which, as I say, are unworthy of me. But I thought that I ought not to do anything common or mean in the hour of danger: nor do I now repent of the manner of my defence, and I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every way of escaping death. For often in battle there is no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he may escape death; and in other dangers there are other ways of escaping death, if a man is willing to say and do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them. And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death, and they, too, go their ways condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villainy and wrong; and I must abide by my award - let them abide by theirs. I suppose that these things may be regarded as fated, - and I think that they are well.”
Plato, Apology







The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the rest of our truths. ~William James


The truth. It is a beautiful and terrible thing,
and should be treated with caution.
- J. K. Rowling




The truth of the matter is that
you always know the right thing to do.
The hard part is doing it.
- Norman Schwarzkoff






We occasionally stumble over the truth
but most of us pick ourselves up and
hurry off as if nothing had happened.
- Winston Churchill
 
Thank you for acknowledging that. Thanks too for reading my posts and doing so often enough that my ID is familiar to you. You didn't have to share that with me; however, I sincerely and respectfully appreciate that you did. Regardless of what others think of one's remarks, it's always nice to know they have read them.

No problem ... It's the truth ... :)

.
 

Forum List

Back
Top