/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17591732]

According to the Gospels, Jesus Christ didn't laugh. Only in the Apocrypha he does laugh. It says a lot that the only person who could know and do anything didn't laugh in all his lifetime.

[Anonymous No.17591772]

>>17591732
I've had the very serious thought "Nothing should be funny" many times. A deep feeling that laughter is a function of some sort of incongruity between perception and reality. But then I think about laughing about a puppy falling over or something and that seems to break my schema.

[Anonymous No.17591922]

>>17591772
laugh is born of a feeling of superiority as Baudelaire said. The wise man doesn't feel superior, so he doesn't laugh. Of course we're humans and there will be always exceptions in which laughter is inoffensive.

[Anonymous No.17592030]

>tfw i laugh whenever i read 'Sneed'
what is the explanation for this

[Anonymous No.17592035]

>>17591732
Yeshua explicitely did not know everything.

[Anonymous No.17592042]

>>17591732
it would be rude for God to laugh at you.

[Anonymous No.17592045]

>>17591732
Jesus told jokes. Half of the Parables are meant to make you laugh. Imagine try to get a camel through the ey of a needle. That's absurd humor.

[Anonymous No.17592048]

>>17592030
dont make me do it anon

[S10241875 No.17592050]

>>17591732
Well he had a hard life. There seems to be nothing to laugh about.
Although everyone sees within the framework of their perception.
Hard people read the Bible and decide that laughter = sin and become like pic related.
Cheerful people see a lot of funny in the communication of Jesus with his disciples, they say that it cannot be perceived without a smile.

Luke, Chapter 19
30 "Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here.
31 If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it.' "

What is this? Robbery of peasants by a gang of religious fanatics? A harsh fulfillment of prophecy? Joke?
Can you imagine some fishermen-hobos come to you, start your car and answer your shout that your car is needed by the Lord.

[Anonymous No.17592054]

>>17591772
>>17591922
There's actually material in philosophy of humor that addresses both of these. The idea of laughter being in regards to something alarming/that shouldn't be laughed at has a dual view of laughter being the recognition of an incongruity.

I think I have an interpretation of humor that honestly captures all the different views at once, namely 'humor as (abruptly) shared insight' that does away with all the normative aspects.

>>17591732
Funnily enough either at the end of Orthodoxy or The Everlasting Man, I forget which, Chesterton has an interesting thing about Christ holding back his humor, and that being one of the least known and most interesting 'mysteries'.

[Anonymous No.17592055]

>>17592030
Abject immaturity.

[Anonymous No.17592058]

>>17592030
Genius and Joy.

[Anonymous No.17592061]

>>17592054
>'humor as (abruptly) shared insight'
*farts*

[Anonymous No.17592063]

>>17591732
What? Nowhere is it written that Jesus did not laugh. The Gospels state that there were many things that Jesus said and did that were not written down; it's also stated that Christ lived as a man. I think it's safe to say He laughed on occasion... particularly as His message was one of love and He tended also to talk of wedding feasts in relation to His mission and the glory of the hereafter (feasts which by their very nature are filled with the sound of laughter).

[Anonymous No.17592075]

>>17592061
This still works with my explanation, especially if you look into pragmatics a la Grice.

[Anonymous No.17592078]

>>17591732
>According to the Gospels, Jesus Christ didn't laugh
>Only in the Apocrypha he does laugh
>didn't laugh in all his lifetime
>in the Apocrypha he does laugh

[Anonymous No.17592092]

>>17592054
>humor as (abruptly) shared insight
That makes sense to me. Any philosophy of humor book recs? Although I feel like I might be turned off by mechanical prose about humor.

[Anonymous No.17592105]

>>17592075
>This still works with my explanation
Wo what's the insight in a fart. Just saying it makes sense is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.17592108]

You're basically the same as the bugman that would try to model their behaviour around what marvel characters would do. As both are semitic mythmaking meant to invert the values of gentile cultures.

[Anonymous No.17592111]

>>17591922
This is the biggest line of bullshit I've ever heard on this entire board, and that's saying something.

[Anonymous No.17592132]

>>17592108
Sad but true.

[Anonymous No.17592188]

>>17592108
>>17592132
>a variety of pagan myths have been easily translated practically 1:1 to comics
>no... it's God as envisioned by the Christians and the Jews that most resembles the Superhero
The sheer volume of tortured logic on this site is something.

[Anonymous No.17592211]

>>17592188
>reading comprehension
>following an argument
How would jews adopting pagan myths make them jewish if you read the pagan myth and not the adoption you inbred?

[Anonymous No.17592212]

>>17592030
Extremely high intelligence

[Anonymous No.17592233]

>>17592035
the spirit told him everything.

[Anonymous No.17592240]

>>17592211
>How would jews adopting pagan myths
Cope. Comic books as an institution take their inspiration from the Greek concept of the heroic.

[Anonymous No.17592247]

>>17592111
He's not wrong. Most forms of comedy exist off the premise of enjoying a display of foolishness or inadequacy.

[Anonymous No.17592255]

>>17592240
You just regurgiated the "if jews adopt something the source material becomes jewish" argument. I'm sorry I expected a christard to be able to argue rationally.

[Anonymous No.17592263]

>>17592045
This is worse than Molière tier "comedy" wtf

[Anonymous No.17592271]

>>17592263
Based Moliere hater. Seriously fuck Moliere.

[Anonymous No.17592276]

>>17592045
No, it's a rhetorical resource called hyperbole. It is meant to make emphasis, not to provoke laughter. However, some people have argued that the eye of the needle refers to a small gate in Jerusalem.

[Anonymous No.17592280]

>>17592255
>gentile comic book writers heavily utilising Greek mythology from the outset is Jewish because one of them might have worked with a Jewish guy at some point or something

[Anonymous No.17592306]

>>17592271
The only remotely funny thing about him is that he died on stage while his character also died at the end of the act.

[Anonymous No.17592307]

>>17592063
>Nowhere is it written that Jesus did not laugh.
And nowhere is it written that Jesus did laugh.
>I said of laughter, “It is mad,” and of pleasure, “What use is it?” (Ecclesiastes 2:2)
>A fool lifteth up his voice with laughter; but a wise man doth scarce smile a little. (Sirach 21:20)
>Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. (Luke 6:25)

[Anonymous No.17592312]

>>17592276
Get a sense of humor.

[Anonymous No.17592314]

>>17592108
Plato was against laughter as well.

[Anonymous No.17592319]

>>17591732
Jesus was fully man (and fully God), so he did in fact laugh.

[Anonymous No.17592346]

>>17592276
How on earth would that be hard for even a grown man to pass through?

[Anonymous No.17592366]

>>17592307
>And nowhere is it written that Jesus did laugh.
To assume that this means he didn't is a fallacy from silence, especially when one considers the passages I mentioned.
>OT quotes
The Old Testament refers to God's laughter and laughter is referenced in a series of other positive contexts also.

[Anonymous No.17592434]

>>17592319
I was expecting this kind of reasoning to appear earlier in the thread, glad that someone finally said it. Although it is true that Jesus was fully human as stated in Nicaea, in fact Jesus could do things way above average. For example, we read in the Synoptic gospels that Jesus fasted during 40 days while he was in the wilderness. Biologically, no human being could endure 40 days without eating, but Jesus did it if we believe the Scripture. In other parts of the Gospels we read that Jesus "spent the whole night praying to God". Since laughing is not even a biological need I think it's no irrational idea to conclude that Jesus could have spent his lifetime without laughing, and since the Gospels make no mention of it, it's mostly sure that he did.

[Anonymous No.17592455]

>>17592346
A camel, not a grown man. Camels are quite big animals.

[Anonymous No.17592490]

>>17592455
Oh right, yeah, whoops. Still - that looks more than large enough for a camel. Maybe I need to look at more camels though.

[Anonymous No.17592513]

>>17592366
God's laughter, like God's wrath, are poetic resources, God doesn't have emotional states. Laughter in the OT when considered in positive contexts mean spiritual joy, no literal laughter. Like when Sarah says "God has made me laugh, and everyone who hears will laugh with me."

[Anonymous No.17592519]

>This crown of him who laughs, this rose-wreath crown: I myself have put on this crown; I myself have pronounced my laughter holy. Nobody else have I found strong enough for this today.

>What has so far been the greatest sin here on earth? Was it not the word of he who said, "Woe unto those who laugh here"?
Fr. Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17592567]

>>17592513
>Laughter in the OT when considered in positive contexts mean spiritual joy, no literal laughter.
The very fact that laughter is being used in a positive context ought to tell you everything you need to know.

[Anonymous No.17592572]

>>17591732
>According to the Gospels, Jesus Christ didn't poo. Only in the Apocrypha he does poo. It says a lot that the only person who could know and do anything didn't poo in all his lifetime.
Do you know how retarded you sound?

[Anonymous No.17592587]

>>17592092
I'm ashamed to say I haven't done any real readings in it minus the SEP and Wikipedia pages. I listened to the TTC course on philosophy of humor while doing yard work a couple of years ago which is how I found out about it. I feel like the mechanical prose might be a problem since most of what I'm aware of in it is analytic stuff, although there might be other things out there. In terms of what I've read that gives kind of a defense for humor I think where I basically copied my idea was from C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, in particular a passage in the Screwtape Letters where Screwtape discourages Wormwood from encouraging humor in his human charge since rather than bringing about poor taste or lust, really good humor has everything to do with joy and an insight/realization that sticks and remains instructive. I think also that's part of why Chesterton's prose is really funny to people, because it illustrates things in a way that speaks to a lot of needs but does so succinctly and not superficially. I'm not sure 'abruptly shared insight' exactly captures the whole thing but I do think it's a core element.

>>17592105
The reason a fart is funny in or out of context to people is because it's a taboo, a disruption that brings larger reality into the picture. Part of why *fart* at my post is funny is because it was an *abrupt* and *insightful* way to call what I said into question.

[Anonymous No.17592602]

>>17592030
brain rot from extreme 4chan use

[Anonymous No.17592610]

>>17592567
But it's also used in negative contexts like the ones I posted, and since I'm Christian I don't admit contradictions in the Bible. Or do you think Sarah was meaning "uhhh everyone who hears this will go like lol xd xd"

[Anonymous No.17592622]

>>17592572
Poop is a biological necessity after eating, and since Jesus ate, it's probable that he defecated as well although historically there has been discussion in that regards. But "laughter" is not a biological necessity.

[Anonymous No.17592628]

>>17592610
In part, yes. Humans love to laugh when they're very happy and have just heard good news.

[Anonymous No.17592636]

>>17592513
>when it suits my argument we should take it literally
>when it doesn't suit my argument it's a poetic resource
Aren't you quite the scholar anon

[Anonymous No.17592649]

>>17592622
>But "laughter" is not a biological necessity.
It isn't unethical either. Christ was the perfect man in the sense that He didn't sin. But in every other sense He behaved as a man. Men laugh. It's good to laugh.

[Anonymous No.17592680]

>>17592030
Just redpilled, Sneed and basedjaks are both hilarious

[Anonymous No.17592685]

>>17592307
Pardon me if I take everything Solomon says with a grain of salt, especially when he himself advised against an obsession with wisdom.

[Anonymous No.17592689]

The man literally beat up a fig tree and his disciples didn't laugh. His jokes are too godly for us to understand.

[Anonymous No.17592702]

>>17592434
Connor Murphy did a 40 day fast

[Anonymous No.17592737]

Laughing, or merriment, is a bit of a peculiar thing really. Not until recently did you have so many people doing it so often. It may be a sign of extreme control, or that brains are now kind of 'caged' as it were and in the inside looking out.

Regardless, throughout the years, different writers have had rather disparaging things to say in regard to extreme laughter, merriment, or even comedies in general. Roger Bacon holds that too much of it is a bad thing, or supports a childish temperament.

Going back to the Greeks, Plato would tell you in the Republic to disregard comedies entirely, his ideal citizens would have nothing of the sort.

It certainly is a peculiarity why people so often say that laughter is a good 'medicine'. Freud would even say they are trying to cover something up with that innuendo (that this is a form of medicinal control, similar to various psychotropics). It is truly a peculiarity of modern times, that is for certain.

[Anonymous No.17592740]

>>17592649
It's no unethical, but it can be a source of great "unethicalities". St. John Chrysostom said it better than me:
>For example, to laugh, to speak jocosely, does not seem an acknowledged sin, but it leads to acknowledged sin. Thus laughter often gives birth to foul discourse, and foul discourse to actions still more foul. Often from words and laughter proceeds railing and insult; and from railing and insult, blows and wounds; and from blows and wounds, slaughter and murder. If, then, you would take good counsel for yourself, avoid not merely foul words and foul deeds, or blows, wounds, and murders, but unseasonable laughter itself—and the very language of raillery—since these things have proved the root of subsequent evils. Therefore St. Paul said, “Let no foolish talking nor jesting proceed out of thy mouth.” For although this seems to be a small thing in itself, it becomes, however, the cause of much mischief to us.

[Anonymous No.17592749]

>>17592685
It was written under the influence of the Spirit whether you like it or not.

[Anonymous No.17592751]

>>17592737
So to answer the OP: I do not think, seeing as Jesus Christ was divine, that he laughed too much, or a tremendous amount.

[Anonymous No.17592759]

>>17592030
Advanced cretinism

[Anonymous No.17592766]

>>17592702
Yeah and look at what happened to him

[Anonymous No.17592826]

>>17592740
>Arguing about whether laughter is ethical and whether Jesus laughed
Christcucks are hopeless sheep. This is all true.

[Anonymous No.17592844]

>>17592702
If he actually did it, which I doubt, he had more body fat and protein reserves than jesus, that's certain.

[Anonymous No.17592872]

>>17592826
>atheist is a twitterfag

[Anonymous No.17592909]

>>17592826
>Brahmin
>having to resort to larping as a Hindu because paganism is so thin on the ground
>whilst at the same time somehow hating brown people

[Anonymous No.17592914]

>>17592826
I'm sure there are Christians out there who haven't seen an "aryan" in their entire lives. I don't understand why everything has to be valued in as much as it opposes this alleged aryan.

[Anonymous No.17592930]

>>17592636
Yes, the Bible doesn't say A is bad and A is good at the same time.

[Anonymous No.17592984]

Books on the psychology of humor?

[Anonymous No.17592993]

What about laughing babies? Does their laughter stem from a feeling of being superior?

[Anonymous No.17593012]

>>17591732
If the gospels are supposed to report everything Jesus did in his life, then the gospels suggest that he never used the bathroom in his life either

[Anonymous No.17593076]

>>17592993
yes, the babies think you're silly, like monkeys.

[Anonymous No.17593083]

>>17593012
>>17592622

[Anonymous No.17593101]

>>17592826
Are you too much of a braindead bug not to understand a simple message like that in >>17592740? How many ironic ''I hate niggers'' do you think did not develop into ''We should kill every nigger in the earth'' even though still ironic? It is just like said, there is no line dividing what is ironic or not. People may laugh at a simple word as ''nigger'', but not an ironic comment about how beautiful it would be to torture every black person in great detail.
What Chrysostom said is very simple and true, whether you like christians or not.

[Anonymous No.17593171]

>>17592572
>>17592622
Jesus pooping has been a hotly debated topic for many years.

www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/valentinus-e.html

[Anonymous No.17593285]

>>17592844
He did actually do it

[Anonymous No.17593364]

>>17591732
Serious christians would rather believe that Christ didn't laugh, even the thought of Jesus laughing his ass off is something they'll find impossible to picture, after all christianism is quite a serious religion, you surely don't laugh at a church, nor you dance for that matter, you sing hymns and contemplate the painting of angels, saints and people suffering in hell.
For the serious christian it surely is a serious topic of debate, humour and laughter belong to pagans and devil worshippers, the devil surely laughs a lot, but we've never seen god laughing, he surely only does it on private in places where serious christians who don't know how to laugh are absent.

[Anonymous No.17593376]

>>17593364
>Weve never seen God laughing
but God must have quite the sense of humor, given how he makes people with Down's syndrome to dance for his amusement.

[Anonymous No.17593397]

>>17592749
Solomon is notoriously uninspired.

[Anonymous No.17593417]

>>17591732
Beware the god who cannot laugh!

[Anonymous No.17593432]

>>17593397
Typical sola scriptura reader. the Bible is the Word of God except when I don't like it.

[Anonymous No.17593442]

>>17593417
Cannot=/= would not.

[Anonymous No.17593451]

>>17591732

Humor is a sign of wisdom and good character. If it is true he didn't find anything funny and held a serious manner all the time it is because he was a wretch and either a buffoon or an utterly broken man

[Anonymous No.17593466]

>>17593442
Yeah, true. I think I get your meaning here.

[Anonymous No.17593522]

>>17593432
I'm a Mormon.

[Anonymous No.17593542]

>>17593522
Revelation and inspiration chad.

[Anonymous No.17593567]

>>17593451
>A buffoon
Quite ironic that you used this word. It discredits the rest of your post.

[Anonymous No.17593577]

>>17593522
Does Jesus laugh in the book of Mormon? Like in the Apocrypha?

[Anonymous No.17593581]

>According to the Gospels, Jesus Christ didn't smile. Only in the Apocrypha does he smile. It says a lot that the only person who could know and do anything didn't smile in all his lifetime.

[Anonymous No.17593670]

>>17591922
Laughter is better understood as a reaction to an absurd situation or incongruity. The superiority theory is proven bullshit. This would even go better with Jesus not seeing anything incongruous about the world, just seeing things are as they should be.

[Anonymous No.17593686]

>>17593581
Yes, some people have said that he didn't smile as well. I'm more reluctant to accept this however.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17593712]

>>17591732
Your post ends in a nonsequitur —Christianity is not reduceable to the Judeochristian bible; contrarily: one learns more regarding Jesus Christ's personality from extrabiblical sources.

[Anonymous No.17593724]

"The Gospels" aren't exactly detailed, lmao
this is retarded

[Anonymous No.17593731]

>>17593670
And why do you laugh at the incongruity? Because you feel superior to that given situation and the characters who participate in the absurd.

[Anonymous No.17593740]

>>17592045
The one about the vineyard and beating the servants actually are me chuckle when he said "what do you think the master will do when he gets back?"

Basically a threat to the pharisees.

[Anonymous No.17593767]

>>17593712
If we know that Jesus didn't laugh we know it precisely because of the Christian Tradition. If we were taking the Bible as our only valid source someone could say >>17593724 and it's a perfectly valid explanation.

[Anonymous No.17593814]

>>17593767
well, we obviously don't *know* that

[Anonymous No.17593827]

>>17593577
He gives out the glass-half-full take on both immortality and mortality (within an Earthly frame) in Chapter 28 of the Third Book of Nephi.

>And he said unto them: Blessed are ye because ye desired this thing of me; therefore, after that ye are seventy and two years old ye shall come unto me in my kingdom; and with me ye shall find crest.

>Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.

OP's point wasn't that laughter is wrong, it was that Jesus Christ was a pessimist.

[Anonymous No.17593838]

>>17593827
I haven't mentioned the word pessimist in the whole thread. My point is that laughter is not good.

[Anonymous No.17593850]

>>17593814
Yes, we know it thanks to the Christian Tradition.

[Anonymous No.17593863]

>>17593850
I believe the word you are looking for, is.. Believe

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17593894]

>>17593767
Jesus laughed a lot —to what "Christian tradition" are you even referring? traditionalism is antithetical to radicalism, which is what Christianity constitutes.

[Anonymous No.17593906]

>>17593850
>the Christian Tradition™
lmao, what exactly is that supposed to mean?
You guys agreed on singular canon yet?

[Anonymous No.17593930]

>>17593863
The Christian Tradition is also the inspired revelation of God.
>>17593894
My sources are the Christian Tradition –what Christians have believed since the Apostles–. My question is, what tradition does affirm that "Jesus laughed a lot"?

[Anonymous No.17593996]

>>17593930
What "Christian Tradition" are you referring???

[Anonymous No.17594029]

>>17593930
man, I wish I could cope like this. pulling the mightiest buzzwords out of my ass at will, and imbuing them with meaning

[Anonymous No.17594039]

>>17592247
Many do but for that idea to be true, ALL humor would have to work that way and it doesn't

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17594046]

>>17593930
There is no such thing as a: "Christian tradition" —quod vide my comment above; you are conflating Christianity/radicalism with Judeochristianity/traditionalism: the former integrates, and cultivates, what is essential to the Christian doctrine, whilst the Judaical elements of the latter isolate, corrupt, and perpetuate, certain parts of the former; the fact that Jesus laughed a lot is perfectly doctrinally cohesive.

[Anonymous No.17594053]

>>17591922
Bullshit desu, there are a lot of forms of humor that don't rely on that. Laughing at yourself when you fuck something up, laughing at a reference to something, laughing at an ironic situation, none of these are inherently tied to any sense of superiority. And since that's the case at all, what you say cannot be true.

[Anonymous No.17594068]

>>17592061
Kek. Thanks for the insight.

[Anonymous No.17594071]

>>17591922
5th for trash take, trash post

[Anonymous No.17594238]

>>17591732
Jesus was fully man (and fully God) and was a child once. Surely at some point in his childhood or babyhood someone made him laugh wouldnt you think?

[Anonymous No.17594276]

>>17591732
Can you post the verses in the apocrypha where he laughed?

[Anonymous No.17594279]

>>17594238
Christian tradition proves that he did not

[Anonymous No.17594281]

>>17591732
The name of the rose has this topic at it's center along with an Aristotle lost treatise. It's very good.

[Anonymous No.17594287]

>>17594279
no it doesn't

[Anonymous No.17594322]

>>17594279
Where in the tradition does it state this? Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox regard the tradition as impeccable. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that the tradition is the 100% accurate revelation of God.

[Anonymous No.17594329]

I mean,, you already centered your life on believing something for no reason
Who am I to judge? Just because you are unusually specific with those beliefs..

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17594339]

>>17594238
Not only that —just imagine how much humour, and joy, would the Son of God have —he who got to retain his ontological memory in its entirety.

[Anonymous No.17594362]

>>17592045
>>17592276

It's not that absurd/funny . The "eye of a needle" refers to a part of a castle.

[Anonymous No.17594411]

>>17594339
>he who got to retain his ontological memory in its entirety.
You can use that very same argument to deny that he ever laughed since despite retaining it, he despaired over his own fate.

[Anonymous No.17594426]

>>17591732
>At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit... (Luke 10:21)
What do you think this joy looked like, OP? Given that Christ came to us as a man. Do you think He just stood there stock still and neither smiled nor made a sound?

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17594472]

>>17594411
Yes, if you are an automaton.

[Anonymous No.17594525]

>>17593996
The Christian Tradition of the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.17594536]

>>17594046
Jesus was a Jew and he was quoting the old testament all the time, no wise rabbi would have laugh very often, and Jesus was the wissest or rabbis.

[Anonymous No.17594552]

>>17594472
Would you laugh much if you knew you had to shoulder every sin and burden of mankind?

[Anonymous No.17594609]

>>17594238
No, I don't think so. When he was approximately 12 years old he already had a wide knowledge of the Scriptures and argued about them during the time he was lost in the temple. By that time he would have known already how Scripture treats laughter. I don't think it's an insane assumption to think that he always had this in mind as he was one with the Father from the very moment of his conception.
>But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
By the way, this is the reason why medieval artists depicted baby Jesus like an ugly old man.

[Anonymous No.17594664]

>>17594426
Not like laughter. Joy=/= laughter. In fact, the people who laugh the most are not even joyful, they're madmen. Laugh is an explosion of rage and suffering as Baudelaire called it.

[Anonymous No.17594675]

>>17592740
>what is the slippery slope fallacy

[Anonymous No.17594707]

>>17594609
one of the reasons*
Here one of Hieronymous Bosch's painting of Jesus' persecutors, who according the Scripture were always laughing at him. There is a significant moment in the passion where the Roman soldiers make fun of him by dressing him as a king and hitting him with a staff, this should be enough to remind us of the essence of laughter.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17594722]

>>17594525
>"The Christian Root of the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church", or, simply: "The Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church"
That is much better —raze the Judaical influences, and implications.

>>17594536
Jesus was Syrian/Doryan, not Jewish.

>>17594552
The concept of Jesus dying for the sins of others, just like just like the concept of sacrifice, is a ridiculous Judaic perversion; Jesus completed his kosmic mission, which consisted in reviving the noble worldspirit, and impelling the noble ones toward God.

[Anonymous No.17594721]

>>17594675
St. John Chrysostom wrote in a time where Reddit wasn't invented yet.

[Anonymous No.17594737]

>>17592030
The sign is a subtle joke.

[Anonymous No.17594747]

>>17594722
Sorry but we're taking in here about Jesus of Nazareth. I don't know about that Jesus of Syria.

[Anonymous No.17594762]

>>17594722
>is a ridiculous Judaic perversion
Why? Because you say so? Learn to fucking carry a conversation.

[Anonymous No.17594769]

>>17594721
See, this is why I come to /lit/: eloquent turns of phrase telling me to fuck off back to r*ddit instead of just image macros implying I was sent here by the Jews to destroy the white race.
Furthermore, the recognition and codification of informal fallacies predates Christ, Chrysostom, and even /pol/.

[Anonymous No.17594772]

>>17591732
>absence of evidence
>evidence of absence

[Anonymous No.17594792]

>According to the Gospels, Jesus Christ didn't laugh.

According to the Gospels, Jesus Christ shit or pee! OMFG

Just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17594796]

>>17594762
Because it is so in purpose, in means, and in end —look at the Protestantistic world surrounding you. and learn to use your own discernment.

[Anonymous No.17594804]

>>17591732
>Jesus laughed, "What a story Mark, haha!"

[Anonymous No.17594818]

>>17594804
Jesus was kind of a Tommy Wiseau-looking dude, now that you mention it.

[Anonymous No.17594831]

>>17594796
#1 Not an argument
How does that relate to the subject?

>because I say so
Gotcha, you literally are incapable of grasping the fact that people other than yourself can hold differing opinions and beliefs
A staple trademark of a certain mental condition

[Anonymous No.17594840]

>>17594818
Thankfully, due to Christian Tradition, we KNOW exactly what Jesus Chris looked like.

[Anonymous No.17594882]

>>17591732
Houellebecq's take
>What is humor in essence but the shame of feeling a real emotion? A kind of feat, an elegant slavish pirouette in the face of a situation that normally generates despair or anger? In this way, one also understands why humor has such a high value today. The Jews have undoubtedly developed, before anyone else, the famous sense of humor, with the help of which, unfortunately, it is possible to endure almost anything.

[Anonymous No.17594899]

Since God has given me a cheerful heart, He will forgive me for serving Him cheerfully.

Joseph Haydn

[Anonymous No.17594933]

>>17594769
He wrote for an audience who knew that actions have precedents, and that some actions VERY LIKELY will inspire others. He didn't need to scientifically prove that trough all this chain of reactions the events have a perfect identificable causality because he acknowledged chance in all of this and there were no Redditors asking for an "evidence" every two words.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17594937]

>>17594831
>#1 Not an argument
How does that relate to the subject?
The burden of proof as to how relinquishing responsibilty, and promoting sacrifice, is benevolent, rather than malevolent, is on you.

>Gotcha, you literally are incapable of grasping the fact that people other than yourself can hold differing opinions and beliefs
It is precisely because I comprehend them that I realize that it is imperative to broadcast the truth.

[Anonymous No.17594963]

>>17594882
Yes. Humor, like irony, is all based on insincerity, in a denial of truth just the way it is.

[Anonymous No.17594986]

I'm tempted to think that laughter is in part a defensive mechanism employed to confront the brutal reality of life, without succumbing to it. This form of humour is observed with the confrontation between something wholly innocent with a harsh reality. An example may be Ignatius Reilly and his seeming lack of self-awareness with the mundane and rather depressing reality around him (i.e., the confrontation between pure ideals and a reality which does not conform to such ideals, try as hard as he might attempt to force it to). Another example is a joke told by Frankie Boyle in which he, from the perspective of an innocent television viewer of the show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, writes into the producers of the show to complain that the show implied that if he were to make gay friends they would give him fashion tips (ideal), whereas in reality they "fucked him" (depressing reality) [the clip is on Youtube for anyone curious].

This latter example lends itself also to the realm of sexual intercourse, which although ideally is an experience of mutual lust and innocent wrestling-in-the-haystacks, is actually quite a brutal, life-changing experience for most people (I am a virgin, for what it's worth). The average person knows this on a fundamental level, and so, like laughter, their reaction to the confrontation between two extremes is the one which results in an extreme psycho-emotional reaction, in this case sexual excitement (similar, I argue, to the experience of laughing). It is no coincidence therefore that some of the most popular pornography of the modern era is that of Blacked, where an innocent female (usually pale, doe-eyed, clean-shaven, physically healthy, teenage-looking) is paired with her opposite, i.e., a brutish, often scarred (or tattooed), aggressive, vulgar black male. In much the same way laughter may be elicited by the confrontation between innocence and experience (or purity and squalidness), so too sexual desire is elicited by the the confrontation between the same thing represented in human form. Another example may be the "innocent" girl and the dirty, lustful old man.

I vaguely recall reading some philosopher's opinion of laughter (perhaps Schopenhauer) and he said a similar thing about a "shock" experienced when two contrasting viewpoints confront one another, or when one is suddenly inverted, though I don't recall them explaining why the shock should result in laughter, rather than hostility (which it arguably does, as in the case of /pol/ users placing Hitler's early artworks beside a piece of modern art in the form of a superimposed image of a sphincter on a canvas in a popular museum), though I would be tempted to argue that such a sudden psycho-emotional reaction is one employed by our ego to both keep the brutish / impure / depressing reality at bay while also accommodating it into our understanding of the world in a way that does not negatively harm or corrupt our overall attitude towards it.

Any thoughts?

[Anonymous No.17595016]

>>17594937
Calling anything you dislike or disagree with a "Judaic perversion", then claiming "look at the state of the world, surely it must be so"
is not way for people with minds to carry an argument

notice how this strategy doesn't tie to the subject, you could use it interchangeably with multiple topics

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17595063]

>>17595016
I matched your general question with a general answer; if you want specific answers, be more specific in your questions —not everyone is here to write an essay for you.

[Anonymous No.17595071]

>>17594986
My preliminary thoughts on the subject is that, functions as basic a laugher exist for such an elegant reason as defense mechanism , is faulty
things that are so basic to the human minds doesn't necessarily serve a function, it just is, brain is not engineered for being sleek and efficient
brain got all kinds of quirks, biases and oddities. things that are largely shared among all humans
especially with "higher" behavior that doesn't have an obvious 1:1 animal analogue, even if animals are by no means immune to the same kind of quirks


I agree with what laugher and humor is, how you can describe it
but no reason for why it is

[Anonymous No.17595330]

The fact that the infinitely powerful Creator became a little baby is pretty comical desu.

[Anonymous No.17595368]

don't laugh
DON'T LAUGH

[Anonymous No.17595378]

>>17594722
You have a sense of the truth and because of that the ground of your posts are generally agreeable. However, you are inclined to and distort your understanding with mundane bias. You have the same ineptitude of gnosticists who fail to realize that the demiurge is the very dualistic rationalization on which they found their beliefs. How do you bypass the fact that there is no Christianity separated from the old Hebrews, that most of gnosticism was heavily influenced by Judaic mysticism?

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17595478]

>>17595378
>...the demiurge is the very dualistic rationalization on which they found their beliefs.
The Demiourgos is the illegitimate ruler of this kosmos, not some mere semantic device.

>How do you bypass the fact that there is no Christianity separated from the old Hebrews, that most of gnosticism was heavily influenced by Judaic mysticism?

1. You ignore what Christianity is.

2. Gnosticism is a theological modality, and has nothing to do with Judaic pseudomysticism.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17595514]

>>17595378
>>17595478
Addendum: "Hebrew" is a linguonym, not a culturonym, nor an ethnonym.

[Anonymous No.17595786]

>>17595478
Demiurge is not real to Christian Tradition, btw
don't make up nonsense

[Anonymous No.17595958]

>>17593364
but the Lord laughs at the wicked,

for he sees that his day is coming.

[Anonymous No.17595967]

>>17594053
>laughing at a reference to something, laughing at an ironic situation,
you feel superior for understanding the reference/irony
refuted by yourself goddam

[Anonymous No.17596123]

>>17592030
Sn

[Anonymous No.17596266]

>>17595967
Who am I feeling superior to and why? That doesn't really make any sense, when I laugh at references it's because they reference something, there's no angle or power dynamic or whatever to it. And you only addressed one of my examples.

[Anonymous No.17596338]

>>17592240
I’d argue that comic book heroes are a fusion of the Greek hero and the Christian saint.

[Anonymous No.17596343]

>>17595967
retard

[Anonymous No.17596345]

>>17591732
Jesus never made the soi face

[Anonymous No.17596367]

>>17595967
Would the last man on earth be unable to laugh at irony? Of course not.
Yet there are nobody around for him to feel superior to.

You could raise a child as a solipsist in a room isolated from the rest of the world, and deny it knowledge of other people. Yet I'm still confident certain forms of humor relying on ""feeling superiority"" wouldn't be lost to it.

That simple thought experiment doing anything to change your take?

[Anonymous No.17596487]

I thought you guys were discussing Jesus from the Bible (a book)
But a lot of the posters in this thread act like the stuff in it is real??? WTF

[Anonymous No.17596507]

>>17596487
WTF BRO?????

[Anonymous No.17596597]

i'm a miserable stinking wretch who does not know the nazarene, but I surmise that, as he said, "let the little children come to me," he partook in play with them, and naturally, he laughed with them.

[Anonymous No.17596644]

>>17591732
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.17596886]

>>17596597
Maybe he smiled, I doubt he laughed.

[Anonymous No.17596889]

>>17596644
Jesus Christ is more real than me.

[Anonymous No.17596990]

>>17591732
it's not important to the story. there aren't any distractions in the NT. (he laughs in Mel Gibson's movie and that one is also canon.)

[Anonymous No.17596995]

>>17592045
Jewish """"""""humor""""""""

[Anonymous No.17597059]

>>17596990
>it's not important
Of course it is, that's why it is mentioned in the Apocrypha, because the authors of the Apocrypha considered it important. In fact many people laugh in the Gospels, Jesus not being one of them.

[Anonymous No.17597093]

>>17592030

[Anonymous No.17597108]

that's why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk6npc1p_vs

[Anonymous No.17597115]

>>17597059
how is it important?
>inb4 so we know he's really human
that fact is established. he's born, he ages, he dies, ressurects, asks for a fish sandwhich, and goes to Heaven.

[Anonymous No.17597146]

dunno about jesus but im perpetually lmaoing at all non-gnostics

[Anonymous No.17597670]

>>17594664
No it isn't. People laugh together when they are very happy; stop being autistic. There's more than one form of laughter.

[Anonymous No.17597686]

>>17597670
Autistic people cannot stop being autistic, bro.

[Anonymous No.17597695]

>>17591732
Jorge please go.

[Anonymous No.17597767]

>>17597115
It's important because by "living as a man" they are clearly referring to more than just biological processes. Christ lived as a man; of course He laughed.

[Anonymous No.17597839]

>>17594362
that is american prosperity gospel rewriting of shit so that rich people can feel good about themselves.

[Anonymous No.17597998]

>>17595478
So you bypass facts by simply refusing to regard them? Very wise.

>The demiourgos is the illegitimate ruler of this kosmos
This is what happens when you take things not to be taken literally, literally. You are no different from protestant subjectivists.

>>17595514
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrews

[Anonymous No.17598011]

>>17592030
>what is the explanation for this
unironically Chuck

[Anonymous No.17598012]

>>17594675
>what is the fallacy fallacy

[Anonymous No.17598055]

>>17592030
I dont laugh, i only chuckle

[Anonymous No.17598080]

>>17592680
i dont like basedjaks that much, except this one
this one is fucking hilarious

[Anonymous No.17598297]

>>17592319
I don't follow. Does being fully man also mean that he had sex? All men do that, too.

[Anonymous No.17598787]

*cums, then starts laughing and farting forever*

[Anonymous No.17599250]

>become a fisher of men
how was this not a joke

[Anonymous No.17599352]

>>17592030
>tfw laughed when I read this post
Don't curse me to hell with you!

[Anonymous No.17599368]

>>17591732
Aren't there descriptions of him laughing and hugging his friends?

[Anonymous No.17599427]

>>17592434
Longest fast ever recorded was over a year (granted, with access to minerals and salt). There are plenty of people that fast 40 days, it's quite a common thing these days

[Anonymous No.17599469]

> Readers who have any tincture of Psychology know how much is to be inferred from this; and that no man who has once heartily and wholly laughed can be altogether irreclaimably bad. How much lies in Laughter: the cipher-key, wherewith we decipher the whole man! Some men wear an everlasting barren simper; in the smile of others lies a cold glitter as of ice: the fewest are able to laugh, what can be called laughing, but only sniff and titter and snigger from the throat outwards; or at best, produce some whiffling husky cachinnation, as if they were laughing through wool: of none such comes good. The man who cannot laugh is not only fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils; but his whole life is already a treason and a stratagem. — Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus

[Anonymous No.17599472]

>>17592263
>>17592271
Never saw people getting filtered this hard. My guess is that you either read him in a bad translation or you had to study him in French class and didn't find it funny at the time because you were young and dumb and haven't given him a second chance.
I hope you find at the very least de La Fontaine to be funny.

[Anonymous No.17599504]

>>17599472
Neither of the anons that you are responding to, but is it the kind of highly intellectual humour like only Wagner himself found funny in his Die Meistersinger?

[Anonymous No.17599864]

he didn't laugh because nothing was funny

[Anonymous No.17599917]

>>17599504
Not even. Molière's plays are (mostly) fairly popular and abordable. Pic related comes from one of his famous scene: Monsieur Jourdain is a bourgeois that want to be seen as aristocratic, he hires several people to learn the "right ways" (who mock him and take his money) and in this scene he wants to write a love letter to a woman. It's arguably not the funniest thing ever written but to not find it funny at all is a little strong. Molière was a genius of comedic rhythm too but this is not the best example.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17599932]

>>17597998
You have not stated any facts, because you ignore what Christianity, and what Gnosticism, are; the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate how Gnosticism —a theological modality—, and Christianity —the spiritual doctrine initiated by Jesus, and divulged by his disciples—, are in any way influenced by Judaism —a Demiourgic, spiritually deficient religion—, rather than obfuscated, and corrupted, by it.

>This is what happens when you take things not to be taken literally, literally.
You are ignorant.

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrews
Do you have an argument?

[Anonymous No.17599978]

>>17592045
>Which of the two did the will of his father? They say, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
this is obviously sarcasm (since, i can only assume, publicans and harlots do not get into heaven unless they cease to be either one) and i had a chuckle at it the first time i read it

[Anonymous No.17600112]

>It's another Eco poster
fuck off and read the bible

[Anonymous No.17600141]

>>17591732
some Muslims say that laughter is the doorway for shaytan to enter into the soul

[Anonymous No.17600872]

>>17599932
I don’t know if you regard people who followed Christ, delivered His message and died for it and Him to be the foundations of Christianity, so I need to ask you, what do you consider Christianity to be and what are its foundations?
How can there be anything other the Divine Infinity?

>you are ignorant
Imagine proclaiming yourself as a gnostic and failing to understand what it implies.

>Do you have an argument?
Yes, it is in the usage of the term Hebrew. You were wrong in thinking it was just a linguonym.

[Anonymous No.17601004]

>>17591772
Either everything should be funny, or nothing should be funny

[Anonymous No.17601020]

>>17601004
Also, I laugh to cope. I for example laugh at the government stealing tax money from my country or at hypocrisy and ignorance in public discourse. It's not really funny I just need to cope

[Anonymous No.17601046]

>>17591772
fpbp you're on the right track

>>17592054
you too.

comedians know this well. punchlines are funny because they are a surprise. certain words are funny for more obscure reasons, but probably not wholly unrelated.

[Anonymous No.17601059]

as for whether Jesus laughed or didn't at all is not for you to decide. scripture is not a 100% accounting of his life.

[Anonymous No.17601079]

>>17599917
That's actually hilarious though. I think the main reason those two anons couldn't appreciate his humour is that it's the real lively humour of a performance, it's meant to be people talking, and reminds me of Machiavelli's The Mandrake.

Btw, did Moliere write any of his plays in metre, or just prose?

[Anonymous No.17601100]

>>17591772
>>17601004
>>17601020
Sounds like an insecurity about sincerity, almost. But you must learn everything is completely funny, and everything is completely serious. It's always going to be both, and one regularly goes between them. The divine comedy in all things, Chesterton said, was Carlyle's recognition.

[Anonymous No.17601158]

>>17600112
Already did
>If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet. (Proverbs 29:9)
>I said of laughter, “It is mad,” and of pleasure, “What use is it?” (Ecclesiastes 2:2)
>A fool lifteth up his voice with laughter; but a wise man doth scarce smile a little. (Sirach 21:20)
>“Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry. “Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. (Luke 6:25)
>Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving (Ephesians 5:4)
>This world is not a theater in which we can laugh. (St. John Chrysostom)
>We absolutely condemn in all places any vulgarity and gossip and talk leading to laughter, and we do not permit a disciple to engage in words of that kind. (St. Benedict's Rule)

[Anonymous No.17601245]

kierkegaard saw laughter as the transition from the ethical life to the religious, the religous man has a sense of humour because he sees the upside in things, suffering is something the religouse man can laugh at as his sense of purpose is not undermined by what is temporal and transient, suffering is can be laughed at as he sees through it, i think christs parables best reflect this idea.
in the weeping of christ at the sight of lazarus's family mourning his death you can also see this sense of telos in christ, he mourns at their despair and the condition of faithlessness that breeds it, nietzsches laughter i would say comes more from this pessimistic outlook, like modern comedians with depression the joke is bittersweet, offensive with a finger pointed out, very different from the innocent joyous laughter of children.

[Anonymous No.17601275]

>>17601079
This or the fact that Molière is with La Fontaine the two authors you'll read the most in French schools. Both are great but I can understand how they can leave a bitter memory if one does not confront with them outside of school. There also the fact that it's an easy way to have an "original" opinion: people who don't read know them but won't really feel compelled to defend them, if you say in a discussion that "Joë Bousquet is severely overrated" you'll get at most a few confused look.
>Btw, did Moliere write any of his plays in metre, or just prose?
He also wrote in metre (alexandrin at the time - 12 vowels), check out Tartuffe or The Misanthrope for instance (cannot vouch for the quality of translations though).

[Anonymous No.17601293]

>>17592030
extremely low intelligence

[Anonymous No.17601316]

>>17591732
>According to the Gospels, Jesus Christ didn't laugh
This is false. Jesus was not shown to laugh in the gospels, but nowhere does it say he never laughed. There is (was?) a great debate in theology over whether he laughed or not, precisely because there is no information about it.

[Anonymous No.17601422]

>>17601316
It's coherent with the rest of the scripture that he didn't laugh.

[Anonymous No.17601550]

>>17601422
It's incoherent with the rest of the scripture that he didn't laugh.

[Anonymous No.17601575]

>>17601550
No, the Scripture treats laughter very badly. And the gospels would have taken into account that he did laugh (if he did), as the Apocrypha does.

[Anonymous No.17601635]

>>17591732
Isn't it the case that you cannot truly laugh without being surprised?

[Anonymous No.17601697]

>>17601635
It's possible, great point.

[Anonymous No.17602128]

>>17601575
>No, the Scripture treats laughter very badly.
See >>17592567
>>17592628 and >>17592628

[Anonymous No.17602185]

>>17591732
>only in the apocrypha
fallacy, Luther doesn't get to decide what is or isn't apocrypha.

[Anonymous No.17602204]

>>17602128
There are no contradictions in the Scripture, this has already been addressed.

[Anonymous No.17602240]

>>17601158
>Proverbs 29:9
The operative point here is that the man is a fool, not that he is laughing.
>Ecclesiastes 2:2
Purposefully written to be as pessimistic as possible.
>Sirach 21:20
See my point about your first quote.
>Ephesians 5:4
This actually implies the opposite, anon. The fact that Paul felt the need to qualify the term with "crude" indicates that laughter in itself is not a bad thing.
>Luke 6:25
Being full or laughing are not bad things in themselves.
>St. John Chrysostom
This is a direction to take life seriously, not to never laugh.
>St. Benedict's Rule
That's for MONKS specifically. Of course monks are supposed to carry themselves with added solemnity.

[Anonymous No.17602263]

>>17602204
See >>17602240

I didn't say there were cotradictions. Sarah laughed in part because she was happy to hear the news. And those who heard it laughed with her for the same reason. Joy causes the best laughter, as when children are at their happiest.

[Anonymous No.17602272]

itt: people discussing the traduction of a traduction

[Anonymous No.17602287]

>>17592092
I'm a bit late but here are the required textbooks for a Philosophy of Humor seminar at my state uni this spring. This should be good to get you started.

[Anonymous No.17602320]

>Luke 6:21
>Blessed are you who hunger now,
> for you will be satisfied.
>Blessed are you who weep now,
> for you will laugh.

[Anonymous No.17602420]

>>17602240
Nice gymnastics. Continue laughing as you please.

[Anonymous No.17602430]

>>17602420
>Nice gymnastics
I could say precisely the same thing to you.

[Anonymous No.17602432]

>>17602320
Another person who believes saints in heaven are literally laughing like if they were watching clowns in the circus.

[Anonymous No.17602450]

>>17602432
No. Are you seriously this literal? There are many different forms of laughter. It means they will laugh with joy once they realise their salvation.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17602729]

>>17600872
>...what do you consider Christianity to be...
>>17599932
>...Christianity —the spiritual doctrine initiated by Jesus, and divulged by his disciples...

>...and what are its foundations?
The precepts, and sacraments, instituted by Jesus Christ, and his disciples.

>Imagine proclaiming yourself as a gnostic and failing to understand what it implies.
?

>Yes, it is in the usage of the term Hebrew. You were wrong in thinking it was just a linguonym.
That is a statement, not an argument.

You seem to erroneously believe that "Hebrew" is mutually equivalent with: "Jewish (mores)".

[Anonymous No.17602733]

>>17592276
>However, some people have argued that the eye of the needle refers to a small gate in Jerusalem.
Rich people who want to say it's ok for them to hoard wealth since Jesus wasn't talking about the wealthy actually having a hard time getting into Heaven.

[Anonymous No.17602886]

>>17602729
>Christianity —the spiritual doctrine initiated by Jesus, and divulged by his disciples...
Yes, but you deny the doctrines preserved with the blood and love of countless disciples?

>That is a statement
Yes, I'm stating that the usage of the term Hebrew is not only a linguistical term as shown in the link addressed. Your refusal to admit you were wrong is not unexpected, you do that all the time to favor your own phantasies.

>You seem to erroneously believe that "Hebrew" is mutually equivalent with: "Jewish (mores)".
Read anything in that article, I meant to refer to broadly speaking ancient Jews and jewish culture.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17602907]

Humour is the overgeneral vibrancy that animates one's motion, and, consequently, one's emotion; to state that laughter is bad/evil/malevolent is tantamount to placing crying, and other natural emotions, in the same category; this is the result of nescient individuals projecting their own incontinence onto the universe, and one of the many examples of the morbidity which corruption of Christianity entails, and with which the Catholic church is afflicted.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17602991]

>>17602886
>Yes, but you deny the doctrines preserved with the blood and love of countless disciples?
No —I integrate what is essential to the Christian doctrine.

>Yes, I'm stating that the usage of the term Hebrew is not only a linguistical term as shown in the link addressed.
Referencing an article that conflates the Hebrew language with the Jewish ethnicity, and with Jewish mores, does not constitute an argument.

>Read anything in that article, I meant to refer to broadly speaking ancient Jews and jewish culture.
There is no "Jewish culture", since Jews do not have any cultural agency; you are conflating: "culture", with: "mores".

[Anonymous No.17603112]

>>17592030
Skinner box

[Anonymous No.17603143]

>>17602991
>No —I integrate what is essential to the Christian doctrine.
or, in other words, you pick whatever fits your phantasies and disregard what crashes it. That is, one example, you deny every word of Christ whenever there is a reference of him as descending from jews, to him as part of jews and jewish culture/religion. What about the apostles? They were trustful but also biased in favor of the jewish people that persecuted them?

>Referencing an article that conflates the Hebrew language with the Jewish ethnicity
There are historical and scriptural bases attesting that the term was employed to refer to the Israelites and their culture.

>There is no "Jewish culture", since Jews do not have any cultural agency; you are conflating: "culture", with: "mores".
Why do they have no cultural agency?

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17603371]

>>17603143
>or, in other words, you pick whatever fits your phantasies and disregard what crashes it.
No; I recognize, and discern between, what is noble, and what is ignoble, sifting out the pollutants.

>There are historical and scriptural bases attesting that the term was employed to refer to the Israelites and their culture.
"Israelites" refers to a Turanyan/Jewish tribe; "Hebrew" refers to language; why is this so difficult for you to understand?

>Why do they have no cultural agency?
Culture is universal; (Pro)Jews —the Jewish ethnicity— are segregational; the former metamerges, and sublimates, the world, whilst the latter —via Zionism— globalistically corrupts, and submerges, the world.

[Anonymous No.17603379]

>>17591772
It's mostly social. Hence why everything is funnier and funner with company. when you don't have a social ground it begins to feel absurd.

also, it's easy to laugh if you allow yourself to assume the patterns and memes of something. easy to not laugh if you don't. though easy to see through, if you just take it at face-value you can find it funny.

[Anonymous No.17603383]

>>17592490
Also important to note in this metaphor is that camels were used to transport goods, so the load on the camel would make it wider. To enter the gate, it would be necessary to "unload" the goods; thus, to enter heaven, you cannot be attached to your material possessions or riches, but must instead "unpack" them and leave them behind.

[Anonymous No.17603389]

>>17592519
Cringe

[Anonymous No.17603584]

people who smile for photographs are gay and retarded

[Anonymous No.17604145]

>>17603371
>I recognize, and discern between, what is noble, and what is ignoble, sifting out the pollutants.
Not even admitting synergy with the Spirit. You are lower than the worst protestant. Egolater.

>Hebrew refers to language; why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Because this is not what the term Hebrew refers to in the Scriptures and to ancient people. Read the article.
Israelites by the way is not the reference to “a” tribe, but to the line of Jacob.

>culture is universal
>jewish ethnicity is segregational
You are really confused and misinformed. Cultures will always have particular forms representing universal “notions”. Ethnicity is segregational by nature.

[Anonymous No.17604167]

>>17594281
I think they said that while Jesus may have found things humorous he wouldn't laugh because he couldn't be surprised.

[Anonymous No.17604191]

>>17591732
In the Bible there are numerous instances where Jesus displays humour. Try reading it.

[Anonymous No.17604366]

>>17604191
like for example...

[Anonymous No.17604377]

>>17592030
holy shit same. after going for a day with no sleep it burrowed into my mind and made me laugh like a madman. It's pure brain rot and I love it.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17604658]

>>17604145
>Not even admitting synergy with the Spirit.
How else would the aforementioned by me be possible, according to you?

>Because this is not what the term Hebrew refers to in the Scriptures and to ancient people. Read the article.
Do you have a "point"? The article will not think for you.

>Israelites by the way is not the reference to “a” tribe, but to the line of Jacob.
Yes —a line that constitutes an ancient Turanyan/Jewish tribe.

>Cultures will always have particular forms representing universal “notions”.
Notions are particular(s), not universal(s); cultures reify what is universal —idea(l)s.

>You are lower than the worst protestant. Egolater.
>You are really confused and misinformed.
If you have nothing pertinent to add you should abstain from posting.

[Anonymous No.17604669]

>>17604658
>>17604377
>>17604366
There is a permanent tension in Christianity between the idea that the world is providentially organised by God and also that it's a fallen world in which things happen that God doesn't approve of. You see this in Christian reactions to mundane things, if they get a job they wanted, it's a blessing from God, if they're treated badly at a job, it's because of bad people, not God. This view can be held even though both scenarios were caused by human agents. A recent example can be seen in the US elections, if a candidate they like wins, it's because of God's plan; if a candidate they like loses, it's because of human corruption.

[Anonymous No.17604701]

>>17604669
Yes, but human corruption is included to make God's plan greater in comparison. God creates greater goods out of present evils, for example when the fall of Adam made possible the incarnation of Christ and our redemption. Some saints have found a blessing in bad things too for this reason.

[Anonymous No.17604741]

>>17604701
big cringe

[Anonymous No.17604763]

>>17604658
The point is that you are wrong in every assertion you have made in our discussion. The term Hebrew is not merely a linguistic reference.
I employed the term notions in the hegelian sense, I was expecting your confusion. Anyhow, the idea is the same and you did not answer nothing related to the issue. And as I said all you do with Scripture is your own distirtions, to fit you phantasies.

[Anonymous No.17604918]

>>17592030
ok gotta do the sneedful

[Anonymous No.17604928]

>>17592826
markbramin is fucking retarded. the only reason he isnt perma banned is because he is gay friend of glowie richard

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17605059]

>>17604763
>I employed the term notions in the hegelian sense,
You ignore the Hegelian ideatic scheme.

>The term Hebrew is not merely a linguistic reference.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how usage of/reference to the term: "Hebrew", is accurate beyond a linguistic context, rather than merely notional.

>The point is that you are wrong in every assertion you have made in our discussion.
>Anyhow, the idea is the same and you did not answer nothing related to the issue. And as I said all you do with Scripture is your own distirtions, to fit you phantasies.
If you do not have any counterarguments, nor anything pertinent to add, nor any requests for clarification, you should just stop posting.

[Anonymous No.17605219]

>>17591922
thanks for the laugh anon

[Anonymous No.17605432]

>>17592307
What the fuck?
>Even though it was written Jesus did things that were not written if it is not written it did not occur.
>My proof is the writings of someone who came before Christ and was painting a four picture of his own personal teachings that is in no way related to the argument
Please stay away from the bible

[Anonymous No.17605462]

>>17592108
>Da joos
Ah yes, very intellectual discussion of philosophy. Tell us more about how no culture in existence has any inherent ability to innovate and that all new culture comes from Aryans.

[Anonymous No.17605508]

>>17592434
Simply because it is possible, does not mean it occurred. We cannot trust that because it was not mentioned it never occurred. Furthermore, never laughing would certainly be something notable enough to be written down, as if it were a miracle it is more likely that it were recorded than not. We cannot assume Jesus never did a certain mundane acts because it was never mentioned, otherwise we might say that Jesus never relieved himself, which is possible, but certainly another miracle that would be notable.

[Anonymous No.17605519]

>>17592108
you don't know what semitic means

[Anonymous No.17605529]

>>17591922
what if you laugh at yourself? (like i always do)

[Anonymous No.17605582]

>>17605432
Yes, Jesus was the Messiah, the perfect Jew, therefore his behavior was coherent with the rest of the Scripture. He was no BASED IBEROCELTIC TRAD APOLLYNEAN PAGAN nor he appeared from nowhere you know.

[Anonymous No.17605589]

>>17605529
That requires some mastery, and it's a recognition of superation of your past inferiority.

[Anonymous No.17605612]

>>17605508
It's no miracle as there's nothing violating the laws of nature. It's just a notion of self-control that the early Christians already aknowledged. Plus laughter and smiling wasn't as common as today.

[Anonymous No.17605622]

>>17594792
Preach!!

[Anonymous No.17605836]

>>17605582
if this is true why did the irish voluntarily convert and go on to become the major wheelhouse of european christianity after the collapse of the western empire?

[Anonymous No.17606261]

>>17595378

Who is the "prince of this world" then?

[Anonymous No.17606475]

>>17606261
sneed

[Jesus No.17606631]

>>17591732
Jesus was in spira tional. Only humor and laughter can make people follow you. and you faggots turned whole planet into funeral.

let dead bury their dead. laughter is natural reflex and true spiritual breathing. be like children, they don't restrict their temple of god, body.

[Jesus No.17606638]

>>17591922
wise man is sick man. man of knowledge is healthy man, and laughter is his cure against faggots like you.

[Anonymous No.17607249]

>>17594707
That it's absolutely based and even acceptable to do when striking down the son of god

[Anonymous No.17607256]

>>17594675
Name a single instance of the slippery slope being fiction. Hint: There are none.

[Anonymous No.17607268]

>>17605059
1. The simultaneous interdependence in the constitution of a culture between universal and particular aspects was the point I made and you are just moving the goal posts now. Your hatred against Jews for a delimitative cultural/ethnic demarcation necessarily extends to all cultures and ethnicities since these are naturally “segregational”, to put as you did.
2. The term Hebrew was employed by the ancients to refer to Israelites, not to a language.
3. I have no counterargument because you have no argument. All you do is: you take whatever you want from the Scripture, reject what goes against your bias and simply affirm that you “discern” what is worthy and what is not. You conform the Divine to yourself not yourself to the Divine. This is the inversion of gnosis.

[Anonymous No.17607325]

>>17591922
>laughter is born of a feeling of superiority
I think Baudelaire was right, by and large.

>the wise man doesn't feel superior
This is wrong though. The wise man might feel superior to a certain situation or a certain person doing a certain thing at a certain time, even if he is too wise to feel generally superior the way a foolish person might.

There's a famous statue of Voltaire called "the smile of reason" and someone or other (maybe Chesterton?) famously said "Jesus wept; Voltaire smiled" to highlight the difference between the two. Voltaire was a typical Enlightenment atheist, so he naturally felt superior to everyone and laughed at them. Whereas Jesus sympathized with them, and therefore wept rather than laughed.

That doesn't mean Jesus NEVER laughed, though. "Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven."

[Anonymous No.17608357]

>>17607325
Good post

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17608390]

>>17607268
>1. The simultaneous interdependence in the constitution of a culture between universal and particular aspects was the point I made...

1. In that case, you mean: "idea(l)s", not: "notions" —the former is concrete, universal, absolute; the latter is abstract, particular, unmediated.

2. (Pro)Jews do not have any cultural agency, because they are not rooted in universal idea(l)s, hence, being an ethnicity —as opposed to being a nation, a folk— they tend toward themselves, not outward from themselves.

>2. The term Hebrew was employed by the ancients to refer to Israelites, not to a language.
Erroneous reference does not alter meaning, which is absolute.

>All you do is: you take whatever you want from the Scripture, reject what goes against your bias and simply affirm that you “discern” what is worthy and what is not. You conform the Divine to yourself not yourself to the Divine. This is the inversion of gnosis.

1. I reiterate: Christianity is not reduceable to the Judeochristian bible; contrarily: the latter constitutes a partial corruption of the former.

2. One cannot conform oneself to the divine, and discern the reality of what is, without being possessed of nobility (derived from root: "-gno") —the essence of the soul—, and, subsequently, without selfconsciousness; your lack, or ignorance, of these latter, precludes from engaging in depurative discourse, and, ultimately, leads to heresy.

3. Gnosis is what facilitates optimal conversion.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17608409]

>>17608390
>...they tend [exclusively] toward themselves...

[Anonymous No.17608412]

>>17592909
>he doesn't even know the definition of pagan
Hindus are pagan you retarded kikestick worshiper.

[Anonymous No.17608451]

>>17593171
really?

[Anonymous No.17608994]

>>17608390
1. Yes, as I said, in the hegelian sense of the term, which conforma to the idea of “look”, “sight”, Eidos, the very revelation (a-lethe). This is totally peripheral but you keep deviating even after I tell you what I meant about the hegelian sense of the term.

2.Apophatic theosophy, ontology comprehend not universally?
Ethnicities and nations/folks are deeply interrelated, there is no cultural center excised from these natural concurrences. The relation between language and the divine are not exclusive to Jews. This is evident in the Vedas with Sanskrit, Egyptian theology and Hieroglyphs. But more generally this the very essence of the symbolic.

>Erroneous reference
It is not erroneous reference (only according to you!). This was (and still can be) what the term referred to. Hebrew is from Ivrim, Ivri, meaning to traverse.

>Christianity is not reducible to the Judeochristian Bible.
Agreed, the Spirit’s Providence was before, during and after it (the Spirit was the formative power of it and it is the guiding noeric (noeros) operation with which one assimilates, hence the synergy, which you reject wholly).
What you regard corruption is your own subjective (personal-fallen) will rejecting the Providence of the Spirit.

>nobility
I agree here, but this is a conceded nobility from the Noble Throne on which seats the Monarch, the King of kings. For someone so biased against Jews this is a very Jewish sunthemata.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17609258]

>>17608994
>Ethnicities and nations/folks are deeply interrelated...
No —they are superfluously related; nationalism is multiethnical.

>...there is no cultural center excised from these natural concurrences.
Nationalism, folkism, and culture, are contranatural, not natural.

>The relation between language and the divine are not exclusive to Jews. This is evident in the Vedas with Sanskrit, Egyptian theology and Hieroglyphs. But more generally this the very essence of the symbolic.
What relevance does this have to the discussion?

>2.Apophatic theosophy, ontology comprehend not universally?
No —negation itself is a particular; what is universal is verification; regardless of this, do you have a "point"?

>What you regard corruption is your own subjective (personal-fallen) will rejecting the Providence of the Spirit.
If you believe that the Old Testament (the Torah), among other things, constitutes divine providence, you are voluntarily delusional.

>...but this is a conceded nobility from the Noble Throne on which seats the Monarch, the King of kings. For someone so biased against Jews this is a very Jewish sunthemata.
You are still handwaving —the only bias here is that of your unfounded presumptions.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17609584]

>>17608994
>This was (and still can be) what the term referred to...
Notional reference does not justify conflation, which leads to confusion; truth is revealed from synthesis of essence with appearence, not merely from appearence; there is no such thing as a "culturally/ethnically/(etho)tribally/racially Hebrew individual", nor a "Hebrew lifestyle/way of life".

[Anonymous No.17609655]

"If anyone represents men of worth as overpowered by laughter we must not accept it, much less if gods." - Plato

[Anonymous No.17609789]

>>17609258
They can be superfluous but they are constitutive of the folk culture precisely because of the emergence of the sacred/symbolic (these are simultaneous) that is: unanimity. Foreigners were treated differently in every civilization. Nationalism is a modern notion and has nothing to do with what we are talking about, that is why it can be multiethnical (globally ethnical).

>nationalism, folkism and culture are contranatural
By natural concurrences I meant ethnical, biological factors. Stop being dishonest for a second.

>What relevance does this have to the discussion?
This is a proof to you how your accusations of an exclusive inner tendency toward its own culture against jews does not hold. This is relevant and you, again having no answer, just makes dumb questions. Now what is the relevance of insisting on an understanding of the term 'notion' which I pointed to you more than one time what I meant by it?

>No —negation itself is a particular;
The apophatic expression points toward what is not particularly negated.
>do you have a point?
I doubt you did not understand what I posted, you are playing dumb, again.

>If you believe that the Old Testament, among other things, constitutes divine providence, you are voluntarily delusional.
I don't reject Divine Revelation, if you think accepting it is ''delusion'' this just proves my point. You are a satanist in the etymological sense of the word.

>You are still handwaving —the only bias here is that of your unfounded presumptions.
My employing of theosophical and symbolical forms displaying the esoteric side of the Revelation is a presumption but your ''I discern myself what I accept or not from the Scripture'' is divine guidance (ironically supposing you recognize it insofar as you yourself denied it).

>>17609584
>Notional reference does not justify conflation
It is not notional, it is how the term absorbed its own significance.

[Anonymous No.17610168]

>>17598055
i don't chuckle, i only sneed

[Anonymous No.17610231]

>>17609655
Nice quote. Almost prophetical.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17610408]

>>17609789
>They can be superfluous but they are constitutive of the folk culture precisely because of the emergence of the sacred/symbolic (these are simultaneous) that is: unanimity. Foreigners were treated differently in every civilization. Nationalism is a modern notion and has nothing to do with what we are talking about, that is why it can be multiethnical (globally ethnical).
>By natural concurrences I meant ethnical, biological factors. Stop being dishonest for a second.

1. Nationalism is an idea(l), not a notion, and its meaning is not limited to contemporary times; Nationalism is pertinent to the discussion insofar as it is used as an example of opposition to ethnicism/ethnotribalism, and of cultural agency.

2. Sincerely: do you have a "point"?

>This is a proof to you how your accusations of an exclusive inner tendency toward its own culture against jews does not hold.
(Pro)Jews —the Jewish ethnicity— do not have a culture, because they have no cultural agency —you have not refuted, nor addressed, this argument; "Apophatic theosophy, ontology comprehend not universally?" does not constitute a counterargument; you, either: ignore what it means to be projewish —a constitutive memeber of the Jewish ethnicity—, or ignore what culture is —or both.

>Now what is the relevance of insisting on an understanding of the term 'notion' which I pointed to you more than one time what I meant by it?
It is pertinent to my argument —see my previous posts.

>I don't reject Divine Revelation, if you think accepting it is ''delusion'' this just proves my point.
>My employing of theosophical and symbolical forms displaying the esoteric side of the Revelation is a presumption but your ''I discern myself what I accept or not from the Scripture'' is divine guidance (ironically supposing you recognize it insofar as you yourself denied it).
I reitirate: if you believe that the recording, and the positing as benevolent, of the doings, and of the following, of that malevolent, adulterous, deceitful, main character entity featured in the Old Testament, and the flagrant Judaic corruption of the Christian doctrine in certain parts of the New Testament, constitute divine revelation, you are spiritually deficient, and voluntarily delusional —no amount of handwaving, nor putting words in an other's mouth, nor formal/appearential reference, will change this fact.

>It is not notional, it is how the term absorbed its own significance.
Widespread confusion does not alter meaning.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17610623]

>>17609789
>>17610408
Addendum, for clarification: a Jewishborn individual's work may transcend the ambit of the Jewish ethnicity, and/or of Judaism, into culture, but this would not make his work Jewish —contrarily: it would make it antiJewish, and/or antiJudaical.

[Anonymous No.17610689]

>>17592050
That's religion in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.17610720]

>>17610408
- You affirm: Jews have no culture because they have no cultural agency.
- I ask you why not.
- You respond: ''Culture is universal, Jews are segregational; the former metamerges and sublimates the world'' and ''because Jews are not rooted in universal idea(l)s, hence being an ethnicity''.
- I show you before everything how ethnicity is not excised from cultural centers (civilizational/folk/national cultures) since these cultural centers, despite aiming and pointing to the universal/transcendent (this is the inner process of emergence of all cultures - both anthropologically and metaphysically) incorporate necessarily particular symbolic forms and images.
- I proceed to tell you how the Judaica fits metaphysically through their theosophy/theology into the category of a genuine culture just like any other through the same symbolique tool.
- You give the exact same response as that in the beginning affirming ''(Pro)Jews —the Jewish ethnicity— do not have a culture, because they have no cultural agency'' and we return to the beginning again because this is what you are doing for almost two days of discussion.

>if you believe that the recording, and the positing as benevolent, of the doings, and of the following, of that malevolent, adulterous, deceitful, main character entity featured in the Old Testament, and the flagrant Judaic corruption of the Christian doctrine in certain parts of the New Testament, constitute divine revelation, you are spiritually deficient, and voluntarily delusional —no amount of handwaving, nor putting words in an other's mouth, nor formal/appearential reference, will change this fact.
You clearly have no sight. This is the irony of the dualistic rationalization the very gnosticists are prey of, they fall for they own notions - yes in this case in the literal sense. Drawn to the arcane, to what is hidden you people are blinded and can see nothing beyond the veil. You have absolute no understanding of good and bad, divine and evil. Since you are biased against Christianity and Judaism I will not recommend Lurianic Kabbalah, Saint Dionysius writings, but try some Platonism, it will help you.

>Widespread confusion does not alter meaning.
Yes, people have been wrong for millenia until you ''discerned'' what the term Hebrew actually implies.

You are an irredeemably insane person. May God help you, good night.

[Anonymous No.17610795]

>>17591732

Yes. Jesus cries when he encounters death.

Socrates laughs.

[Anonymous No.17610910]

>>17610623
What I find really curious is how your biased ethnocentric hatred is exactly what the Christic Revelation warns against and unveil as inherent in all mundane religions. You are closer to a Pharisee, closer to what you hate, more than you think with these illogical, fictitious repetitions with mundane inclinations, you reaffirm the reciprocity of the beast (system) mechanism, You don't understand Christ at all.

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17611305]

>>17610720
>- I show you before everything how ethnicity is not excised from cultural centers (civilizational/folk/national cultures) since these cultural centers, despite aiming and pointing to the universal/transcendent (this is the inner process of emergence of all cultures - both anthropologically and metaphysically) incorporate necessarily particular symbolic forms and images.
What relation does this have to the aforementioned argument? Having particular symbolic forms and images does necessarily entail culture; also: ignoble biogenetical heritage is a factor to (Pro)Jews not being capable of having any cultural agency, not the converse.

>- I proceed to tell you how the Judaica fits metaphysically through their theosophy/theology into the category of a genuine culture just like any other through the same symbolique tool.
It does not —spurious dilucidation does not entail/fit into culture.

>You clearly have no sight.
>You are an irredeemably insane person.
>You have absolute no understanding of good and bad, divine and evil.
>Since you are biased against Christianity and Judaism

>I reitirate: if you believe that the recording, and the positing as benevolent, of the doings, and of the following, of that malevolent, adulterous, deceitful, [fearmongering,] main character entity featured in the Old Testament, and the flagrant Judaic corruption of the Christian doctrine in certain parts of the New Testament, constitute divine revelation, you are spiritually deficient, and voluntarily delusional —no amount of handwaving, nor putting words in an other's mouth, nor formal/appearential reference, will change this fact.

>This is the irony of the dualistic rationalization the very gnosticists are prey of, they fall for they own notions - yes in this case in the literal sense. Drawn to the arcane, to what is hidden you people are blinded and can see nothing beyond the veil.
?

You ignore what is Gnosticism.

>May God help you, good night.
Have a good night, nescient heretic.

>>17610910
I do not hate anyone; the rest of your post is superfluous.

[Anonymous No.17611475]

>>17592108
A man who lifts weights and trains in the martial arts to emulate Goku is a dullard, but for his dullardry he is a hundred times your physical better.
How awful is your fetish for novelty that emulating the actions of another frightens you so badly?

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17612081]

>>17611475
>A man who lifts weights and trains in the martial arts to emulate Goku is a dullard
How would emulating a heroical fictional character make one a "dullard", according to you?

[Anonymous No.17612199]

Jesus had Jewish humor, like Seinfeld. What's the deal with these Pharisees?

[Anonymous No.17613288]

It's called Passages. It's a book.

[Anonymous No.17613629]

>>17591732
That sounds like a burden of proof fallacy, Russell's teapot. Just because it doesn't say he didn't laugh doesn't mean he didn't. I bet it also doesn't say he took a shit, does it?

[Anonymous No.17613791]

>>17591732
>Above all, he hardly ever smiled. He told me there was nothing to smile about in this world.
-Richard Weininger on his brother, Otto

[Anonymous No.17613817]

>>17612199
Who in the Bible was most like Larry David?

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17613900]

>>17612199
Jesus' sense of humour was childishly sanguine, and sardonically clever; the typical Jews' sense of humour is adolescently choleric, and petulantly uncouth.

[Anonymous No.17614529]

>>17593364
unironic question
are you from Saudi Arabia or something?
because you look like you never fucking met a Christian or interacted with Christianity in any way.