wisewoman: I think children were drawn to Christ because of His purity. Children seem to sense those who are good and those who are up-to-no-good. And do you see anyone in the New Testament with sense flaunting their sin in front of Jesus? No. Something in them knows He's no ordinary man. They end up falling at Jesus' feet in repentance or getting angry at something He says or does. I like the portrayal of Jesus in Zeffirelli's [?] Jesus of Nazareth best. Of course, the real Jesus is far superior to this, but still.

There are different kinds of humor. But I don't equate it with Christian joy. That's something else. Do I sometimes laugh with other Christians? Yes. And yet, I'm still not convinced Jesus and His disciples, or some others in the Bible, laughed as much as we do now. So many American Christians seem to know so little persecution and suffering.

I think people assumed the wise men were kings because they brought kingly gifts. The gold, frankincense and myrrh were gifts worthy of a king, and/or the kind of gifts kings might give, especially if they didn't knew the new peer well.

Thanks.

GB: I'm in complete agreement with Dr. Ransom on God as a Person--who has personal characteristics--and on our ability to know Him. God has made Himself known to us through His Word and through Jesus Christ, the living Word. If you want to know God, go to Jesus. The best part is that there are different levels of knowledge. And in heaven, we will know God as we are known [1 John 3]. If we want to know a spouse, friend, or family member better, we spend more time with them! The same is true with Jesus. We must spend more time with Him in Bible reading, prayer, and worship. If we draw near to God, He will draw near to us [James 4].

JBC, thanks for your kind question. I did not mean to imply that Catholics have no "system" for Biblical interpretation, though I do disagree (as I'm sure you know) with a lot of how they read things.

However, even things like treating Christ's sacrifice (which the Bible treats as once-for-all, and not to be "reenacted" -- I do not say "redone" as some Protestants cry -- at the Mass; see the book of Hebrews) are not unique to Catholicism. In practice, that kind of view of Christ's death can beset either Protestants or Catholics, though perhaps the Catholics codify it more directly, along with things like indulgences and purgatory.

That's why I don't spend a lot of time trying to pick fights with you guys -- at least, no more than trying to address, I hope with grace and truth, the way non-Catholic Christians believe wrong ideas about the Bible.

Thanks for the clarification Doc. I had a sneaking suspicion that was the train of thought behind the post.

As for 'reenacted' I would say that 're-presented' or 'making present' is a more accurate term, but thats a small quibble.

JBC

I think children were drawn to Christ because of His purity.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course. But how does this square with the doctrine of original sin? How are children "drawn to purity" when they are sinful beings hostile to God (Psalm 51:5)? The Bible says that the sinful mind is hostile to God; it does not submit to Him and nor can it (Romans 8:7). By nature we are not drawn to Christ or to purity; we are sinful by nature from the moment of conception. So saying that the children were drawn to Christ because of His purity seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Why can't Jesus smile and laugh and enjoy an affectionate tease toward one of the disciples? Why can't he make the children laugh and join in Himself? Why is this sinful? This is a point you have failed to address.

Now I'm not saying that Jesus was a comedic genius and THAT is the sole reason the children were drawn to Him. I think He drew them... and that He understood the psychology of children, and loved it — and held it up to His disciples as a requisite for salvation. They certainly were not afraid of Him.

And do you see anyone in the New Testament with sense flaunting their sin in front of Jesus? no. Something in them knows He's no ordinary man. They end up falling at Jesus' feet in repentance or getting angry at something He says or does.

What does this have to do with anything? You seem to think all humor is rooted in some kind of sin. That isn't my experience with humor at all! I'm confused about how this quote is at all relevant to the subject...

And yet, I'm still not convinced Jesus and His disciples, or some others in the Bible, laughed as much as we do now. So many American Christians seem to know so little persecution and suffering.

What does persecution have to do with humor? Are you saying we should never laugh at anything funny because there are Christians around the world who are suffering? Wow, that's just... wow.

As you often do in these discussions, you're setting up a strawman, hinting that we American Christians do nothing but goof off and laugh our heads off all day, while the "serious" Christians are being persecuted. Why do you always leap to these extremes? I'm sure no one here has posted anything that could reasonably be said to support such an interpretation.

Here's a question for you: do you think the Pharisees had a sense of humor? Why or why not? Your picture of Jesus, so far as I can tell, sounds about as pompous and stiff as a holy, self-important Pharisee! He's man, sure, you admit, but (hey! another "yes-but"!) a different kind of man! An inhuman one, if you extract a sense of humor from Him. He was human, sure, but He probably never got a headcold, or used the bathroom, or laughed at something funny!

A truer picture is the Jesus who talked to children, who did not scare them away with His overbearing seriousness and gravity. Who looked on His disciples with love even when they were most ridiculous. I don't mean to emphasize a sense of humor at the expense of Christ's other attributes, but I think the opposite error is being committed.

Do you think Jesus went to the wedding at Cana looking like Death's head at the feast? All somber and serious and lowering eyebrows? Do you think He never once laughed at something while growing up? Imagine Mary and Joseph and the younger brothers laughing heartily at something around the dinner table — did Jesus sit snobbily aloof, supercilious eyebrows raised? Or maybe He managed a condescending smile, just to humor them? Ugh.

And you don't address the other excellent rebuttals, presented by both Ransom and TOM:

Again, context is important -- exegesis, trying to understand a passage the way His hearers would have understood it first. They would have heard humor. These are objective facts; you may find them in the commentaries and such you mentioned consulting

Objective facts. How do you deal with that?

Furthermore, it does Jesus' humanity a great disservice to say that Jesus never laughed, as if laughter was somehow sinful.

Is laughter sinful?

If God did not invent humor, who did? The Devil?

If he did, we're all (or most of us, anyways) hopelessly infected!

The Jesus of my A of G imaginings would not have needed the disciples to shoo away the little children: they would have been intimidated, and would have stayed some distance away from Him.

Amen! A humorless Christ is a scary-looking, Pharisaical Christ. He didn't have to guard His dignity like we do! It was His in perfect possession, and He of all humankind would be the freest to laugh at something funny.

But if humor didn't come from God, where did it come from? Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above. Does humor qualifies as either good or a gift?

This is the rub of it! Is humor good? Is humor a gift?

We await your answers! But perhaps you don't have time at the moment?

Having been in class for the last 5-6 hours and doing homework, I've missed a lot of this. So my comments may appear to be hit and miss points so bear with me.

Why did the angels visit the shepards first? The answer is not because they were the closest, even though that may be the case. The answer also lies in the answer to why were women the first to hear about the Ressurection. If the birth or the Ressurection were ever to be a hoax, sheperds and women would NEVER be considered to be the first ones to start it. If it was a hoax, it would have been squashed in a matter of minutes. By choosing the lowest in the social standings to start the fire, God validated the story by ruling out the possibility of it being a hoax.

Jesus with a sense of humor: One thing you are missing 220, Jesus was 100% human as well as 100% God. He had to be both. Yes, Jesus was focused on his mission and yes, heaven and hell are very serious matters. But Jesus was depicted as a man who showed deep emotion with those he knew as a person. Jesus wept over Lazarus' death, even though he was minutes away from bringing him back to life. Jesus also showed moments of joy. I'm sure he told jokes and stuff like that. But some of his parables were more than just teaching. Some were like riddles, designed for people to mull over and trying to figure out a puzzle. Others had a flavor of sarcasm. I imagine Jesus would often laugh at the Pharases attempt to trap him. Not in mockery, but elation that they would keep trying.
You mentioned that we here in America tend to not know about persecution and persecution is why they never laughed. I must say you don't really know about persecution either if that is the case, certainly not from first-hand experience. I've been on the mission field for years, and the field where my family has been is currently the deadliest city in the world. We are not targets directly, but we know people that are. We minister with those who have asked us to take care of their families should they be killed in the drug war. From what I've seen and know, if someone is enduring persecution, they will find whatever souce of joy they can when they can. For Jesus to endure what he endured, before facing the cross, he would not have emotionally survived as a human without some kind of joyful moments. But what's cool is that Jesus can even take a joke and turn it into a teaching moment. The thing about parables and jokes is that people remember them. They don't remember sermons in themselves often. Was Jesus solemn about heaven and hell and his task? Absolutely. Did that dominate his complete mind processs? No. He went to a wedding and partied with tax collectors and sinners. Relationships were the focus of his ministry. I've never seen any relationship somewhere where no jokes were told.

I'd say more but I've got homework to do.

*jumps in rather quickly* I have read through most of the last page though. Dr. E: I find myself agreeing with you on pretty much everything.

There are different kinds of humor. But I don't equate it with Christian joy. That's something else. Do I sometimes laugh with other Christians? Yes. And yet, I'm still not convinced Jesus and His disciples, or some others in the Bible, laughed as much as we do now. So many American Christians seem to know so little persecution and suffering.

I do agree that many Christians don't realize the amount of suffering that goes on in other Christians' lives, and it's definitely something sober to think over and seriously pray about. But that doesn't mean that we have to be sober and serious all the time. Far from it! God gave us so many things to be full of joy over!! And laugh over.
On the other hand, I don't believe that Jesus never laughed.

20 "Surely God does not reject a blameless man
or strengthen the hands of evildoers.

21 He will yet fill your mouth with laughter
and your lips with shouts of joy.

Our mouths were filled with laughter,
our tongues with songs of joy.
Then it was said among the nations,
"The LORD has done great things for them

a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance

(Obviously there is a time for everything...)

A merry heart does good, like medicine,[a]
But a broken spirit dries the bones.

God is definitely not against laughing--far from it! I'm not saying to go to the other extreme and never be serious either--but to say God or Jesus doesn't laugh--is a bit too far in my opinion.
The Bible says numerous times that God laughs at His enemies. I believe He laughs at them making their little plans, so eager to carry out what they are going to do, and their victory. You don't think God would find it somewhat humorous that these little creatures whom He could kill any time are trying to make their own plans that He can also change in a second? God is so in charge of everything, I know it's laughable to me that anyone would think they could control everything.

Or maybe He managed a condescending smile, just to humor them? Ugh.

Agreed. The thought seems impossible.

I love humor--I love laughing--I love smiling--I love joy... The thought that Jesus never laughed or smiled is probably more shocking to me then the thought that Jesus did laugh is to you, 220.

Before I reply to laughter & sin and all that I have to know something first. What is your definition of sin wisewoman?

Great points, Fencer! I think if Jesus could cry, He could also laugh. There's no reason why He shouldn't; no one has yet proved that laughter and humor are, in themselves, sinful.

Queen Susan, welcome to the conversation , I appreciate the Scriptures you quoted. I couldn't agree more about the parts of the Bible that talk about God laughing at His enemies. It isn't like a fallible, sinful man laughing at someone he hates. God's actions are never sinful, and even His amusement is always righteous.

I wonder if He is having a good chuckle right now at this very conversation and all of us in it? Wouldn't surprise me

Watz, sin is what the Bible says it is: disobedience to God's law, prideful rebellion against our Maker. It manifests in various ways depending on circumstances and personality, but at its core it is always that first sin of Adam and Eve — a state of disobedience.

Are we going to get into a discussion of original sin and children possessing a sin nature? Oh goody

About humor...I think its a vital part of who we are. So often we get the idea of the 'plaster saint' who always look so serious.

I can remember the story of St. Lawrence who was martyred by being essentially cooked over a fire. He said during his excecution, "Turn me over. I'm done on this side." - If that doesn't show a saint who suffered and still had a sense of humor I don't know who does.

JBC

You mistook my meaning. I wasn’t referring to the invisible church, the body of believers dead and living. I was referring to the visible church, which has a definite beginning and end. All the denominations come under this umbrella. Matthew 16 “Upon this rock I will build my church.” Note the future tense! The birth of the church occurred in Acts 2. We see that same church in Revelation 1-3, but not afterward! The visible church doesn’t exist in heaven. Why? It’s not necessary. I repeat: the visible church is a divinely created institution but neither divine nor eternal. Also, you say “the City of God began with Abel.” He had to go through the way of the cross, just like the rest of us. Christ preached to the spirits in prison [1 Pet 3], most likely the Old Testament saints. For all mankind, beginning with Adam, there is one way of salvation, one remedy for sin, and one entrance into heaven: the blood of Jesus Christ, which “speaketh better things than that of Abel” [Heb 12].

But what is the visible church except the physical manifestation of the one holy catholic and apostolic church? We are required to fellowship in spirit and in truth within this body, which indeed goes back to Abel. It is this Church, the true Israel, the City of God, which is both visible and invisible.

When you go to church and partake of the body of Christ, do you perceive it? You don't think that the Church in Heaven is visible? Only to the eyes of those who are blind! Christ Himself promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church--are we to take that as a temporary thing? You speak of Revelation 1-3, don't you see that the whole rest of Revelation is about the Church?

I didn’t say we agree on everything. I said we agree on what counts, on salvific issues and points of doctrine. There are mainstream churches and there are non-mainstream ones, usually cults. Non-Trinitarians are considered heretics, are they not? Those who preach another gospel are heretics. Those who say Jesus isn’t the only way to heaven are heretics. Those who deny the resurrection of the body are heretics. And on and on. I’m not using this word lightly. And I don’t consider those that the mainstream church classes as heretics “Christians.”

The Nicene Creed, as ratified at Constantinople I, is the last time that the whole visible church agreed on anything. The next Council (Ephesus) split the church in half, after the eastern church (Assyria, Persia, all areas outside the Roman Empire) rejected it, and the church has been splitting ever since. Are you saying that the Nicene Creed is all that counts for salvation?

I have no problem with the Nicene Creed, although I prefer the Apostles’ Creed. It’s easier to recite. But calling the Nicene Creed “an orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures” is going a little far. Why? It is extra-biblical, written by man.

So just what is the orthodox interpretation? I have a friend who is taking just your line of thought to suggest that maybe the trinity is not taught in the scriptures--after all, it's just a theological construct created by man. Maybe the church has been wrong these past two thousand years.

I do read the scriptures. However, like the Ethiopian Eunuch, I find much that perplexes me and so I need someone to help explain what it means. I do meditate on the law of the Lord, yet I must not ignore those who have gone before.

The Jews are considered a “people of the Book.” So are Baptists. I personally think all Christians should be a “people of the Book”!

Christianity is Jewish--enough said.

On humor:

Why does our culture believe that humor and seriousness are mutually exclusive? I used to read Plato, and the thing I was always struck by was how Socrates' use of humor was always pointed. Just because he was joking didn't mean that he wasn't serious.

I think too many Christians today think that Jesus was a solitary melancholy person who may (like Hamlet) have had an excess of black bile in his system. However, as many have pointed out, Jesus seems to have had quite a sense of humor. He wasn't above mirth at wedding feasts (indeed, as I recall he provided the wine--very good wine too!) or making puns (you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church). One can imagine him smiling at the Disciples' attempts to say who would be greatest and then saying, "Well, ok--in order to be great, you have to be the servant of all."

I think that this caricature of Jesus as a man with no sense of humor is one of the worst parts of the modern "search for the 'historical Jesus.'"

As for humor in the rest of the Bible, it's there for the finding:

Try Elijah at Mount Carmel poking fun at the futile attempts of the Prophets of Baal to conjure up fire from heaven. Much of the Biblical language about idol worship, especially in the minor prophets, is satirical in nature.

I've also been told by my friends who know Hebrew (one of these days . . .) that books like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes contain hundreds of plays on words and puns.

In short, God has a sense of humor: if you don't believe me, catch yourself in a moment of self-pity and see what God thinks of you.

And if you think that persecution makes one sober and humorless, go read Foxe's book of Martyrs, particularly his stories from the reformation--those protestants often had some good comebacks:

Take Hugh Latimer on his way to the stake: "Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."

TBG

People have made note of the 'visible' and 'invisible' Church. Now I hold there is only one Church split into three locations, The Church Triumphant, The Church suffering, and the Pilgrim Church. There can be only one Church because there is only one Christ.

The Church is eternal and is not going to stop when the world is consumed. We know from Revelation that Church will go on. TBG is right the Nicene Creed is a very clear definition of faith...one that all Christians should be able to agree too...whatever other differences we may have.

JBC

Oh dear. Your story of St. Lawrence did give me a laugh, jbc! What an unexpected bit of humor. If anyone has the right to be funny, it's the man who is suffering.

Why does our culture believe that humor and seriousness are mutually exclusive?

This puts me in mind of a quote from Chesterton's The Napoleon of Notting Hill near the end, when the humorless Adam Wayne and the perpetually joking Auberon are joined:

...the human being sees no real antagonism between laughter and respect, the human being, the common man, whom mere geniuses like you and me can only worship like a god... You have a halberd and I a sword; let us start our wanderings over the world. For we are its two essentials.

You knew that had to come along eventually.

220, you have enough to think about — I hope! — and perhaps respond to already. So naturally, I shall pile on.

I do hope you will think about this further, and not just proceed (um, as before) to keep repeating the same assertions, or move on to a new topic, and thus maybe miss out on something the Spirit might be trying to tell you — something new and unpredictable, something He has tried to say in the Scripture He inspired. What are the assumptions behind your single-minded assertions that there is no humor in the Bible at all? What if you are wrong?

Will there be no laughter and joy in Heaven, and in the New Earth? Will Christ not be joyful there? Are you like many believers, in that you you secretly wonder if it’s true that Heaven will be boring and so “spiritual” that it’s in effect joyless? And that you’re supposed to anticipate such a place anyway?

As WiseWoman asked, is such a version of Jesus Christ closer to the in-charge, holy, supreme and mighty, yet joyful, creative, wonderful, loving, caring Creator/Savior we know, or closer to the dour holier-than-anything attitude of the Pharisees — either first-century or modern?

Why the false dichotomy between seriousness about the things of God and the reality of persecution in the world? As noted above, evidently at least some martyrs didn’t see such a divide. And we know the Apostle Paul would agree.

(In the stentorian tones of a game-show host, joined in at the all-caps parts by an enthusiastic and live studio audience) “And now, it’s tiiiime for ... EXXXX! EEEEE! GEEEESISSSSSS!”

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Philippians 2: 12-15

Let’s see. Which “value” can we find in here — fear/trembling/seriousness? It’s definitely there. We should take sanctification (growth in God’s holiness) seriously. We work it out as ours “with fear and trembling.”

Now let us never, ever, ever miss this part: is this up to us? Yes, absolutely; Paul told this to the Philippians, church members, and obviously we are also affected. But Who is really doing the work? It is God in us. Not either/or, either us or God. Both God and us — with Him getting credit. And why is He doing this? Because it’s right? Because He is so seriously holy? Yes and yes. Is it also for His good pleasure? Also yes. It’s all the same. God is delighted by this. That is an emotion, and a serious fact all at the same time. Again, both/and.

More from Paul. He starts out serious about sanctification. He talks about the possibility of dying for Christ — himself dying. But then, wow, watch what happens.

Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all. Likewise you also should be glad and rejoice with me.

Philippians 2: 14-18

There it is again: both/and. Paul took the possibility of dying like a sacrifice himself very seriously. Yet he encouraged them all, himself included, to rejoice. They are God’s, and God is sovereign and in control, even in the face of their deaths. Though surely Paul was gripped with sorrow and fears even as we are, God was with him to the end and the Apostle stressed rejoicing in Christ. Both/and. Both/and. Again, the notion that we must either be serious about suffering and potential martyrdom or joyful, even mirthful, is a false dichotomy.

I can’t help but wonder about the reasons why you’re so adamant about this, 220. Here I will try to be careful, yet still I will ask: is this possibly because you have seen the excesses of emotionalism unchecked by seriousness?

My wife reminded me of some craziness that got about last decade called the “holy laughter” movement. People got all mob-mentality-driven and “spiritual” and decided they would get together and have the “Holy Spirit” tickle them to the point of paroxysms and then laugh themselves sick and hyperventilate and/or vomit into brown paper bags.

Obviously, that’s way wrong; we can prove it is with Scripture. When the Holy Spirit comes, He does not bring confusion. That’s true with the Word (which the Spirit inspired). That’s true with the Spirit’s indwelling presence in our lives. Paul encouraged the Corinthian church, in their practice of even spiritual gifts like prophecy and tongues, to do things in order (1 Corinthians 14:40). This is Biblical balance: waiting for the Spirit to move, even “unpredictably,” yet never outside of the Word He inspired, and never to the point of such confusing excess.

Now, if you have heard of the disordered, laugh-yourself-sick extreme (in Pentecostalism and charismaticism), and you’re trying to avoid that, I fear you have thus swerved into yet another extreme position: dull-and-dour Jesus, serious all the time, possibly because He is so desperate to get people to believe Him and that is such serious business there is no time for laughter.

Let us follow this notion and see if it matches the Biblical Christ: if Jesus was so desperate to get people to believe Him, why hide the meanings in parables? Why say the same thing in dozens of different ways, often using hyperbole and humor to get the point across? Why was He so serious, yes, but also so confident about it? Yes, Jesus was serious, but He was also in charge. He knew what He came to do. He could preach repent-and-believe in different ways, often indirectly, and keep going, with time to spare, without being so desperate.

Maybe it is both overcorrection based on an extreme view and a low view of Christ that undergirds this perspective of yours.

Now, don’t dodge this again. Please explain whether I’m right in my guess.

I have grown further in understanding from your posts, despite our disagreements, that not all Pentecostals are wild-eyed physical-prosperity-pushing overtly-emotion-driven wackazoids. Now, perhaps you need to return the favor some.

Not all Christians who acknowledge the humor in Scripture, or the sovereignty of God in people’s salvation, or the humanity of Christ, or the freedom we have in Him, fall so neatly into the this-or-that, black-or-white categories you apparently have set up according to personal paradigms. Perhaps the Spirit has subtly guided you to NarniaWeb to do something — hmm, unpredictable — blowing away your neat little categories for Christians. I know He has surprised me several times through what I’ve read, and heard from people who didn’t behave as I expected (a certain “Calvinist” hip-hop artist comes to mind).

And of course, if all else fails, I could claim this: the Holy Spirit told me there is sarcasm, humor, even mockery on the side of God, in the Bible, and that you need to know this. Bada-bing! I’m touching “base”; you can’t tag me.

... Ordinarily I would apologize, even “partially,” for using sarcasm myself. But there’s still that question left unanswered of how someone can argue a point if someone else touches “base” and claims the Holy Spirit revealed it to them, and interpret the Scripture in the light of that “revelation” rather than vice-versa.

Finally, there’s this. I would love to send this post back in time to myself, about 10 year ago, and tell myself this ... it ought to blow just a few stereotypes ...

A woman of Pentecostal persuasion, staunchly defending the notion that “nothing in the Bible is funny, no matter which version or language it’s in”; that Jesus never told a joke or used sarcasm, humor or a hint of hyperbole, never laughed; and that it is “disturbing” to claim otherwise, even perhaps sinful.

(I thought Pentecostalism was at least partly about recovering the vibrancy and delighted emotions we are supposed to have in the Spirit? What happened?)

And in the other corner, defending the seriousness and humanity and humor of Jesus, and the joy we have in Him, are ... along with other free-willie-leaning folks ... a Reformed woman (WiseWoman), a Reformed Baptist (myself), and a Reformed Presbyterian, of all things (The Black Glove)!

So: a bunch of dry-doctrine, God’s-sovereignty, supposedly-high-and-lofty “Calvinists” are pushing the humanity of Christ and the delight, joy and even humor He has, and which we should have in Him, more than the Pentecostal person.

What is wrong with this picture?!

I think that is perhaps the most hilarious thing about this thread so far.

I'm just popping in here really quick to say that I think anyone who says God doesn't have a sense of humor has never seen a duck-billed platypus.

P.S."Brooklyn!"

A gentle admonition not to play too rough with someone who may have hit a personal Romans 14 limit. It was not until very recently that I was comfortable with Ralph Kozak's painting "Laughing Jesus", and maybe other people aren't comfortable with it yet.

As for me, a crucifix to illustrate Christ has died, a plain cross to illustrate Christ is risen, but as for "Smiley the Cross" (The Smiling Cross), a no-thank-you! Other people may be spiritually fed by it, and good for them, but I'd consider a chocolate cross more appropriate in comparison! But that's me.

Great thoughts (as usual) TOM! Thank you yet again for a needed reminder.

If this is an issue of Christian freedom, yes, I must not rub it in to someone who has a real and true struggle with something like the notion of Christ using humor or sarcasm. However, it is also wrong according to Romans 14 (and 1 Corinthians 8) for someone to decide that this is always wrong, for everyone else.

I keep coming back to this a lot. It's helped me so much, and I wish others could see it too. This puts grace and discernment in perfect balance.

Paul is clear: if you "eat" -- that is, enjoy something that in and of itself is not always a sin -- then don't use your freedom to taunt other Christians or act more spiritual, and thus tempt them to actual sin. But if you don't "eat" -- that is, something not inherently sinful would tempt you toward sin, such as idol worship -- then don't insist everyone else follow the same standard.

Both "sides," though, must know that unlike other things, this is not an issue of actual sin. Neither "side" is sinning. The only sin would be expecting the other "side" to behave exactly as you do, and condemning them as less "spiritual," or either too free or too strict, if they don't.