2paradoxosalpha
15. Thus spake the Magister V.V.V.V.V. unto Adonai his God, as they played together in the starlight over against the deep black pool that is in the Holy Place of the Holy House beneath the Altar of the Holiest One.
16. But Adonai laughed, and played more languidly.
17. Then the scribe took note, and was glad. But Adonai had no fear of the Magician and his play. For it was Adonai who had taught all his tricks to the Magician.
18. And the Magister entered into the play of the Magician. When the Magician laughed he laughed; all as a man should do.
19. And Adonai said: Thou art enmeshed in the web of the Magician. This He said subtly, to try him.
20. But the Magister gave the sign of the Magistry, and laughed back on Him: O Lord, O beloved, did these fingers relax on Thy curls, or these eyes turn away from Thine eye?
21. And Adonai delighted in him exceedingly.
(Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente, from The Holy Books of Thelema)
16. But Adonai laughed, and played more languidly.
17. Then the scribe took note, and was glad. But Adonai had no fear of the Magician and his play. For it was Adonai who had taught all his tricks to the Magician.
18. And the Magister entered into the play of the Magician. When the Magician laughed he laughed; all as a man should do.
19. And Adonai said: Thou art enmeshed in the web of the Magician. This He said subtly, to try him.
20. But the Magister gave the sign of the Magistry, and laughed back on Him: O Lord, O beloved, did these fingers relax on Thy curls, or these eyes turn away from Thine eye?
21. And Adonai delighted in him exceedingly.
(Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente, from The Holy Books of Thelema)
3paradoxosalpha
At a quick search, the only laughter I can find in the Hebrew or Christian bibles that is not derisive or "to scorn" is Ecclesiastes 3:4. "A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance."
There's a lot of schadenfreude, though. "I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh" (Proverbs 1:26).
There's a lot of schadenfreude, though. "I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh" (Proverbs 1:26).
5bibliophile613
Sarah laughed
8lilithcat
Psalm 126:
When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion,
We were like unto them that dream,
Then was our mouth filled with laughter,
And our tongue with singing . . .
When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion,
We were like unto them that dream,
Then was our mouth filled with laughter,
And our tongue with singing . . .
9bibliophile613
The Bible rarely describes emotions and feelings.1 At the end of the previous weekly reading, Parashat Lekh Lekha, when Abraham is informed that he will have a son by Sarah, he falls on his face and laughs: “Abraham threw himself on his face and laughed, as he said to himself, ‘Can a child be born to a man a hundred years old, or can Sarah bear a child at ninety?’” (Gen. 17:17). We do not see the Holy One, blessed be He, calling him to task in that instance, asking him “Why did you laugh just now?” In contrast, when Sarah laughs about bearing a son at her advanced age, the Holy One, blessed be He, calls her to task, as if defending His honor (Gen. 18:13-14):
Then the Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sara laugh, saying, ‘Shall I in truth bear a child, old as I am?’ Is anything too wondrous for the Lord? I will return to you at the same season next year, and Sarah shall have a son.”
Rabbenu Hayyim ben Atar, known as Or ha-Hayyim, raises the question: How was Abraham’s laughter different from Sarah’s laughter, that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not call Abraham to task for laughing, whereas He did indeed for Sarah laughing? And not only did He call her to task, He even argued with her when she denied having laughed, as it is written, “Sarah lied, saying, ‘I did not laugh,’ for she was frightened. But He replied, ‘You did laugh’” (Gen. 18:15).
Rashi, following Targum Onkelos, finds the difference between Abraham’s laughter and Sarah’s laughter in the significance of the laugh, its nature, and what it expressed. That is, Abraham’s was the laughter of delight, of optimism. Accordingly, Onkelos’ translation says Abraham “rejoiced.” That is to say, Abraham believed and was happy because a son would be born to him, improbable as it might seem. But why? Because G-d had said so, and if He had said so, that would come to pass. Thus Abraham’s laughing was an outward expression of his inward sense of belief and happiness.
In contrast, Sarah’s was the laughter of scorn and lack of faith. Onkelos translated her laughter as being from the same root as smiling, expressing contempt and the absence of true hope, as Rashi explained: “She looked at her stomach and said, ‘Is it possible that this womb shall bear a child? Can these withered breasts ever produce milk?’” (on Gen. 18:12). In other words, Sarah had lost faith in her ability to bear, and for that reason the Holy One, blessed be He, called Sarah to task but did not call Abraham to task (Rashi on Gen. 17:17). The Holy One, blessed be He, who sees into one’s inner thoughts, knew how to distinguish between Abraham’s reverent laugh and Sarah’s irreverent laugh, between laughter emanating from sanctity and strong faith and laughter—even if only in one’s heart—that stems from contempt and lack of true faith.
Or ha-Hayyim rejects this interpretation, which ascribes two different meanings to the same word: “On what did the Holy One, blessed be He, rely, taking one word to have two different meanings?” That is to say, how could the root tz-h-k (= to laugh) be interpreted in one instance in the sense of true joy and in the other as indicating scorn and contempt?2 He explains:
Indeed, the correct explanation is that the Holy One, blessed be He, indeed was precise in His words, and for good reason called Sarah to task and not Abraham. For we find that Abraham laughed when he received the annunciation, but this was not the case with Sarah. She did not laugh when she received the annunciation, but when she saw her youthfulness returning, as it says, “And Sarah laughed” etc., “Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment?”3
This indicates that she did not credit the promise of bearing a child until she had seen a change occur in herself; and for this the Lord called her to task. Thus, He said, “Why did Sarah laugh?” meaning: this laughter I will call to task, but not your laughter, because this laughter was as if to say, “So it is actually true!” For she only believed after the fact that she would bear a child, and this shows that she was of little faith and did not trust My promise to her, since it was a miraculous thing to happen, as it is written, “Is anything too wondrous for the Lord?” (Or ha-Hayyim, Va-Yera 18:13)
According to Or ha-Hayyim, the distinction between Abraham’s laughter and Sarah’s laughter was not in the essence of the laughter. Both Abraham and Sarah laughed out faith, however the timing of their laughter was different. Abraham laughed as soon as the Holy One, blessed be He, informed him that He would grace him with having a child.
At that very moment, well before Abraham sensed any change in his body, he had perfect faith in the might and ability of the Holy One, blessed be He, to change the nature of the world and give him virility and the ability to beget a son, just like any young man. In contrast, with Sara, “she did not credit the promise of bearing a child until she had seen a change occur in herself; and for this the Lord called her to task.”
In other words, Sarah did not laugh immediately, but only after discerning that biological changes were occurring in her body.4 Only then, when faith was implanted in her, did she begin to laugh. Because of this alone—because her faith had not preceded her sensing a supernatural change in her body—the Lord called her to task.5 In other words, Abraham had faith from the outset, whereas Sarah had only after the fact. Such faith leaves something to be desired, for if the miraculous thing had begun to happen, it is no longer a matter of believing but of knowing.
It is relevant to speak of “faith” only when we do not know explicitly whether something is true or false, reliable or misleading. But the moment something becomes known, we no longer have the choice of believing or not believing, for the thing already speaks for itself. Therefore, even if Sarah had not yet conceived, nevertheless she already felt all her bodily systems becoming rejuvenated, her ability to bear taking on a new aspect, and was as if reborn. Conceiving and bearing had become a possibility, so she believed that the Holy One, blessed be He, had remembered her.
The Holy One, blessed be He, bestowed upon Sarah such an abundance of beneficence and such enormous change, that the midrash describes the day of Isaac’s birth as one of laughter, joy, and light for the world, many being blessed by virtue of Sarah:
Sarah said, “G‑d has made me laugh; everyone who hears will laugh with me”—Rabbi Berakhia b. Rabbi Judah b. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Samuel b. Rabbi Isaac said: If Reuben has cause to rejoice, what does it matter to Simeon? Similarly, if Sarah was remembered, what did it matter to others? But when the matriarch Sarah was remembered, many other barren women were remembered with her; many deaf gained their hearing; many blind had their eyes opened, many insane became sane. For “making” is mentioned here has made me, and also elsewhere (Esther 2:18): “He the king proclaimed Heb. `asah = “made” a remission of taxes for the provinces.” As the making mentioned there means that a gift was granted to the world, so the making mentioned here means that a gift was granted to the world. (Genesis Rabbah 53:8)
Then the Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sara laugh, saying, ‘Shall I in truth bear a child, old as I am?’ Is anything too wondrous for the Lord? I will return to you at the same season next year, and Sarah shall have a son.”
Rabbenu Hayyim ben Atar, known as Or ha-Hayyim, raises the question: How was Abraham’s laughter different from Sarah’s laughter, that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not call Abraham to task for laughing, whereas He did indeed for Sarah laughing? And not only did He call her to task, He even argued with her when she denied having laughed, as it is written, “Sarah lied, saying, ‘I did not laugh,’ for she was frightened. But He replied, ‘You did laugh’” (Gen. 18:15).
Rashi, following Targum Onkelos, finds the difference between Abraham’s laughter and Sarah’s laughter in the significance of the laugh, its nature, and what it expressed. That is, Abraham’s was the laughter of delight, of optimism. Accordingly, Onkelos’ translation says Abraham “rejoiced.” That is to say, Abraham believed and was happy because a son would be born to him, improbable as it might seem. But why? Because G-d had said so, and if He had said so, that would come to pass. Thus Abraham’s laughing was an outward expression of his inward sense of belief and happiness.
In contrast, Sarah’s was the laughter of scorn and lack of faith. Onkelos translated her laughter as being from the same root as smiling, expressing contempt and the absence of true hope, as Rashi explained: “She looked at her stomach and said, ‘Is it possible that this womb shall bear a child? Can these withered breasts ever produce milk?’” (on Gen. 18:12). In other words, Sarah had lost faith in her ability to bear, and for that reason the Holy One, blessed be He, called Sarah to task but did not call Abraham to task (Rashi on Gen. 17:17). The Holy One, blessed be He, who sees into one’s inner thoughts, knew how to distinguish between Abraham’s reverent laugh and Sarah’s irreverent laugh, between laughter emanating from sanctity and strong faith and laughter—even if only in one’s heart—that stems from contempt and lack of true faith.
Or ha-Hayyim rejects this interpretation, which ascribes two different meanings to the same word: “On what did the Holy One, blessed be He, rely, taking one word to have two different meanings?” That is to say, how could the root tz-h-k (= to laugh) be interpreted in one instance in the sense of true joy and in the other as indicating scorn and contempt?2 He explains:
Indeed, the correct explanation is that the Holy One, blessed be He, indeed was precise in His words, and for good reason called Sarah to task and not Abraham. For we find that Abraham laughed when he received the annunciation, but this was not the case with Sarah. She did not laugh when she received the annunciation, but when she saw her youthfulness returning, as it says, “And Sarah laughed” etc., “Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment?”3
This indicates that she did not credit the promise of bearing a child until she had seen a change occur in herself; and for this the Lord called her to task. Thus, He said, “Why did Sarah laugh?” meaning: this laughter I will call to task, but not your laughter, because this laughter was as if to say, “So it is actually true!” For she only believed after the fact that she would bear a child, and this shows that she was of little faith and did not trust My promise to her, since it was a miraculous thing to happen, as it is written, “Is anything too wondrous for the Lord?” (Or ha-Hayyim, Va-Yera 18:13)
According to Or ha-Hayyim, the distinction between Abraham’s laughter and Sarah’s laughter was not in the essence of the laughter. Both Abraham and Sarah laughed out faith, however the timing of their laughter was different. Abraham laughed as soon as the Holy One, blessed be He, informed him that He would grace him with having a child.
At that very moment, well before Abraham sensed any change in his body, he had perfect faith in the might and ability of the Holy One, blessed be He, to change the nature of the world and give him virility and the ability to beget a son, just like any young man. In contrast, with Sara, “she did not credit the promise of bearing a child until she had seen a change occur in herself; and for this the Lord called her to task.”
In other words, Sarah did not laugh immediately, but only after discerning that biological changes were occurring in her body.4 Only then, when faith was implanted in her, did she begin to laugh. Because of this alone—because her faith had not preceded her sensing a supernatural change in her body—the Lord called her to task.5 In other words, Abraham had faith from the outset, whereas Sarah had only after the fact. Such faith leaves something to be desired, for if the miraculous thing had begun to happen, it is no longer a matter of believing but of knowing.
It is relevant to speak of “faith” only when we do not know explicitly whether something is true or false, reliable or misleading. But the moment something becomes known, we no longer have the choice of believing or not believing, for the thing already speaks for itself. Therefore, even if Sarah had not yet conceived, nevertheless she already felt all her bodily systems becoming rejuvenated, her ability to bear taking on a new aspect, and was as if reborn. Conceiving and bearing had become a possibility, so she believed that the Holy One, blessed be He, had remembered her.
The Holy One, blessed be He, bestowed upon Sarah such an abundance of beneficence and such enormous change, that the midrash describes the day of Isaac’s birth as one of laughter, joy, and light for the world, many being blessed by virtue of Sarah:
Sarah said, “G‑d has made me laugh; everyone who hears will laugh with me”—Rabbi Berakhia b. Rabbi Judah b. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Samuel b. Rabbi Isaac said: If Reuben has cause to rejoice, what does it matter to Simeon? Similarly, if Sarah was remembered, what did it matter to others? But when the matriarch Sarah was remembered, many other barren women were remembered with her; many deaf gained their hearing; many blind had their eyes opened, many insane became sane. For “making” is mentioned here has made me, and also elsewhere (Esther 2:18): “He the king proclaimed Heb. `asah = “made” a remission of taxes for the provinces.” As the making mentioned there means that a gift was granted to the world, so the making mentioned here means that a gift was granted to the world. (Genesis Rabbah 53:8)
10bibliophile613
Genesis 17:17
וַיִּפֹּ֧ל אַבְרָהָ֛ם עַל־פָּנָ֖יו וַיִּצְחָ֑ק וַיֹּ֣אמֶר בְּלִבּ֗וֹ הַלְּבֶ֤ן מֵאָֽה־שָׁנָה֙ יִוָּלֵ֔ד וְאִ֨ם־שָׂרָ֔ה הֲבַת־תִּשְׁעִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה תֵּלֵֽד׃
Abraham threw himself on his face and laughed, as he said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man a hundred years old, or can Sarah bear a child at ninety?”
18
וַיִּפֹּ֧ל אַבְרָהָ֛ם עַל־פָּנָ֖יו וַיִּצְחָ֑ק וַיֹּ֣אמֶר בְּלִבּ֗וֹ הַלְּבֶ֤ן מֵאָֽה־שָׁנָה֙ יִוָּלֵ֔ד וְאִ֨ם־שָׂרָ֔ה הֲבַת־תִּשְׁעִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה תֵּלֵֽד׃
Abraham threw himself on his face and laughed, as he said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man a hundred years old, or can Sarah bear a child at ninety?”
18
13librorumamans
>9 bibliophile613: >12 spiralsheep: The Bible rarely describes emotions and feelings.
Saul towards David? David towards Jonathan? David towards Bathsheba? David towards Absalom? Joseph's brothers towards Joseph? Joseph towards Jacob? Moses on seeing the golden calf? Naomi towards Ruth? Song of Songs? One could go on.
These are pretty vivid descriptions, it seems to me.
Saul towards David? David towards Jonathan? David towards Bathsheba? David towards Absalom? Joseph's brothers towards Joseph? Joseph towards Jacob? Moses on seeing the golden calf? Naomi towards Ruth? Song of Songs? One could go on.
These are pretty vivid descriptions, it seems to me.
14John5918
>13 librorumamans:
Yes, I was also thinking of Song of Songs. In the New Testament, I think of Jesus, Lazarus, Martha and Mary in chapter 11 - "The man you love is ill", "Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus". Or the woman who anointed Jesus' feet in Luke 7:46 - "her sins, many as they are, have been forgiven her, because she has shown such great love". Or Matthew 19:22 - "When the young man heard these words he went away sad, for he was a man of great wealth." Or 1 Corinthians 13:13 - "And the greatest of them is love". Vivid descriptions indeed.
While laughter may not be mentioned in so many words, rejoicing is a theme found throughout the bible, and surely laughter is implied as part of rejoicing?
Yes, I was also thinking of Song of Songs. In the New Testament, I think of Jesus, Lazarus, Martha and Mary in chapter 11 - "The man you love is ill", "Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus". Or the woman who anointed Jesus' feet in Luke 7:46 - "her sins, many as they are, have been forgiven her, because she has shown such great love". Or Matthew 19:22 - "When the young man heard these words he went away sad, for he was a man of great wealth." Or 1 Corinthians 13:13 - "And the greatest of them is love". Vivid descriptions indeed.
While laughter may not be mentioned in so many words, rejoicing is a theme found throughout the bible, and surely laughter is implied as part of rejoicing?
16John5918
>15 spiralsheep:
On rejoicing, I was thinking more along the lines of Psalm 122, "I rejoiced that they said to me, 'Let us go to the house of Yahweh. At last our feet are standing at your gates, Jerusalem!'"
Jesus never laughs in gospel.
Fair comment. But isn't it implied in texts such as Matthew 11:18-19? "For John came, neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He is possessed.' The Son of man came, eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton and a drunkard'." Don't "gluttons and drunkards" tend to laugh a bit whilst enjoying "eating and drinking"?
It doesn't answer your question and is probably off topic, but it reminds me of one of the best Catholic priests I ever knew, a missionary who worked many years overseas and died of cancer at a relatively eary age. He liked to drink, smoke, swear and tell off-colour jokes. When challenged, he would say he was imitating St Peter. When questioned as to where it says Peter did all these things, Gerry would reply that Peter was a fisherman and every fisherman he had ever met drinks, smokes, swears and tells off-colour jokes.
On rejoicing, I was thinking more along the lines of Psalm 122, "I rejoiced that they said to me, 'Let us go to the house of Yahweh. At last our feet are standing at your gates, Jerusalem!'"
Jesus never laughs in gospel.
Fair comment. But isn't it implied in texts such as Matthew 11:18-19? "For John came, neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He is possessed.' The Son of man came, eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a glutton and a drunkard'." Don't "gluttons and drunkards" tend to laugh a bit whilst enjoying "eating and drinking"?
It doesn't answer your question and is probably off topic, but it reminds me of one of the best Catholic priests I ever knew, a missionary who worked many years overseas and died of cancer at a relatively eary age. He liked to drink, smoke, swear and tell off-colour jokes. When challenged, he would say he was imitating St Peter. When questioned as to where it says Peter did all these things, Gerry would reply that Peter was a fisherman and every fisherman he had ever met drinks, smokes, swears and tells off-colour jokes.
20John5918
>19 spiralsheep:
But the scriptural texts speak of rejoicing (ie joy), and you haven't actually answered my question.
But the scriptural texts speak of rejoicing (ie joy), and you haven't actually answered my question.
22John5918
>21 spiralsheep:
Psalm 122 is not a scriptural text?
And your comments about religious people are beginning to look like an ad hominem fallacy.
Psalm 122 is not a scriptural text?
And your comments about religious people are beginning to look like an ad hominem fallacy.
24librorumamans
>23 spiralsheep:
Okay, that comment is uncalled for. And to repeat an observation often merited on LT, that sort of hyperbolic invective says little about the target but much that is unflattering about the poster.
Okay, that comment is uncalled for. And to repeat an observation often merited on LT, that sort of hyperbolic invective says little about the target but much that is unflattering about the poster.
25spiralsheep
>24 librorumamans: "Okay, that comment is uncalled for. And to repeat an observation often merited on LT, that sort of hyperbolic invective says little about the target but much that is unflattering about the poster."
No, librorumamans. John5918 repeatedly demanded attention by derailing the thread I began and on which there was a constructive conversation which has now been shit all over. I politely attempted to re-rail my thread more than once but was ignored and ignored, which means that either the offender is deliberately being rude and demanding attention or the offender lacks reading comprehension. I gave the benefit of the doubt and assumed lack of reading comprehension. Now, you, librorumamans are also rudely demanding my attention and derailing my thread.
I asked a simple factual question and am now being berated because two people don't like the answers to that simple factual question. Fortunately nobody asked John5918 and librorumamans to post here and they can make their own thread. Bye!
To everyone else: sorry the two rude people have ruined this interesting discussion. I tried!
No, librorumamans. John5918 repeatedly demanded attention by derailing the thread I began and on which there was a constructive conversation which has now been shit all over. I politely attempted to re-rail my thread more than once but was ignored and ignored, which means that either the offender is deliberately being rude and demanding attention or the offender lacks reading comprehension. I gave the benefit of the doubt and assumed lack of reading comprehension. Now, you, librorumamans are also rudely demanding my attention and derailing my thread.
I asked a simple factual question and am now being berated because two people don't like the answers to that simple factual question. Fortunately nobody asked John5918 and librorumamans to post here and they can make their own thread. Bye!
To everyone else: sorry the two rude people have ruined this interesting discussion. I tried!
26librorumamans
Another observation that occurs to me: while there are few, if any, comic moments in the Bible that we living now see or that amused the characters in the text, humour itself is highly cultural. So I suggest that it is presumptuous for anyone who is not deeply informed about the range of cultures, spanning many centuries, represented in the biblical texts to assert that we can identify what would have been viewed as humorous two-and-a-half millennia ago.
27jjwilson61
>25 spiralsheep: It looks to me like two people tried to respond to your question and you didn't like their answer so you're throwing a tantrum. BTW, it's not your thread. Anyone has a right to post what they want.
28SandraArdnas
>26 librorumamans: But the question isn't what they found humorous, but rather whether they deemed laughing high spirits worthy of mentioning/including in the scriptures. Judging by the scarcity of examples, they didn't, which isn't really surprising, Laughter and humor are all too often treated as frivolous in Western cultures in general, not merely in religious context. It's equally scarce in arts
29librorumamans
>28 SandraArdnas:
Sure. I was only making an observation.
[Laughter]'s equally scare in arts.
I don't know what this means; could you elaborate?
Sure. I was only making an observation.
[Laughter]'s equally scare in arts.
I don't know what this means; could you elaborate?
30SandraArdnas
>29 librorumamans: I mean that generally joy, laughter, humor, etc, are considered too frivolous to be subject of 'serious' art, at least until the arrival of postmodernist. Before 1950's, you'd be hard-pressed to find literature or paintings that prominently feature positive spirit conducive to laughter. If there's humor in cultural canon before that, it's usually biting satire.
31librorumamans
>30 SandraArdnas:
Interesting. I suppose there are questions about what constitutes serious art and biting satire. Aristophanes is the latter, I expect. But I don't think that all the humour in Boccaccio or Chaucer is satirical. There's Shakespeare to consider, unless we dismiss the comedies as unserious. Or Sheridan, Congreve, Goldsmith, and Wilde. I'm not aware of humour in Beethoven, but it's certainly there in Mozart and Haydn. Chekhov subtitles The Seagull "a comedy", and I've seen a production that did indeed have, and much to my surprise, a lot of unforced laughter in it.
I find playfulness, joy, and good humour in some of the community scenes in the art of the Flemish school. A number of trompes-l'œil are intended to provoke a laugh from the viewer.
Perhaps I am missing your point.
Interesting. I suppose there are questions about what constitutes serious art and biting satire. Aristophanes is the latter, I expect. But I don't think that all the humour in Boccaccio or Chaucer is satirical. There's Shakespeare to consider, unless we dismiss the comedies as unserious. Or Sheridan, Congreve, Goldsmith, and Wilde. I'm not aware of humour in Beethoven, but it's certainly there in Mozart and Haydn. Chekhov subtitles The Seagull "a comedy", and I've seen a production that did indeed have, and much to my surprise, a lot of unforced laughter in it.
I find playfulness, joy, and good humour in some of the community scenes in the art of the Flemish school. A number of trompes-l'œil are intended to provoke a laugh from the viewer.
Perhaps I am missing your point.
32SandraArdnas
>31 librorumamans: No, I think you understood what I wanted to say, and those are some excellent examples, but to me they are few and far between (and generally employed by well established artists, so they are taken seriously by default).
33librorumamans
It's also the case, I understand, that comedy is much harder to do well than straight up.
34paradoxosalpha
The phrase "serious art" seems to tautologically exclude levity. But I think what's implied here is a "high culture" vs. "low culture" distinction, where humor and mirth are considered "low." (This polarity can easily be traced to Aristotle's theory of genre and probably has earlier precedents.) Religion is "high culture" according to this line of thought, and thus the earnest belly laugh is alien to it.
35John5918
>25 spiralsheep:
My apologies if you feel that my attempts to engage in a constructive conversation on the topic of laughter in scripture "derailed" the thread. It certainly wasn't my intention. That's the nature of conversations on LT, that they proceed in directions which interest the posters, not under the control of the OP, as >27 jjwilson61: points out.
Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes? It would help my understanding if you could let us know the purpose of your original question. My own reading of scripture is always from an exegetical rather than a literalist hermeneutic, which may be one possible point of discord. I also note your pejorative description of "religious people", which potentially gives us different underlying assumptions in such a conversation.
Edited to add: After posting this I noticed that all of spiralsheep's post have just disappeared. Strange.
My apologies if you feel that my attempts to engage in a constructive conversation on the topic of laughter in scripture "derailed" the thread. It certainly wasn't my intention. That's the nature of conversations on LT, that they proceed in directions which interest the posters, not under the control of the OP, as >27 jjwilson61: points out.
Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes? It would help my understanding if you could let us know the purpose of your original question. My own reading of scripture is always from an exegetical rather than a literalist hermeneutic, which may be one possible point of discord. I also note your pejorative description of "religious people", which potentially gives us different underlying assumptions in such a conversation.
Edited to add: After posting this I noticed that all of spiralsheep's post have just disappeared. Strange.
36Crypto-Willobie
If Jesus does not laugh perhaps we could at least say he displays wit... for example "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”
37SandraArdnas
Appropriate quote from A Confederacy of Dunces I'm currently reading?
"Optimism nauseates me. It is perverse. Since man’s fall, his proper position in the universe has been one of misery.”
It's certainly biting satire that made me laugh
"Optimism nauseates me. It is perverse. Since man’s fall, his proper position in the universe has been one of misery.”
It's certainly biting satire that made me laugh
