I've read through that and your right it is only a starting point, but its not that I lack understanding of the notion, its that Biblically speaking a purely invisible Church is not a tenable idea. If we look in acts we see both the spiritual and visible nature of the Church working together...they weren't separate.

JBC

220 wrote:

I discovered a book online yesterday called The Laughing Jesus. The authors argue against religious fundamentalism and for Gnostic spirituality. What are your thoughts on this?

I haven't seen this book but it sounds very similar to Deepak Chopra's book Why is God laughing. That is, both books sound very New-Age. Gnosticism is coming back in the form of such crossover books; everything old is new again, as the Preacher said. (BTW, did the book actually say it was part Gnostic?)

Happily, Ralph Kozak seems to have no such fringe intentions when he painted "Laughing Jesus" (the portrait). There have been a few arguments that Jesus must have laughed. Laughter is part of hope and part of love. How did it fade from the great three of faith, hope, love? Because of questions about whether laughter is compatible with faith. There's also been a notion that Jesus must have laughed because laughter is part of the human experience and Jesus could not redeem what He did not become. (Not coincidentally, it was why Jesus had Gentile ancestors.)

But if Jesus didn't laugh, doesn't it follow that He didn't redeem laughter? When we laugh, are we sinning? Or is it more like going vegetarian: we don't have to, but we don't feel guilty about the treatment of the meat animals and aren't contributing to it.

I think Jesus was serious-minded. I honestly don’t think He ever laughed. Again, if you disagree, fine. At the same time, I don’t think Jesus was dull or sad-faced or resembled the hypocritical Pharisees in any way. Yes, Jesus was 100% human. But let’s not make Jesus so human that we forget He’s also 100% God.

Like you, there was a time I found a laughing Jesus so alien that it seemed almost disrespectful. Again, I'm not making fun or dismissing things. We know that Jesus got angry, that He wept, and that He loved. I don't think people actually give a lot of thought to which emotions Jesus experienced and which ones He avoided (jealousy, I'm guessing) until someone actually mentions it. It's just not something people discuss very much, either to affirm it to to refute it. I think the very idea of Jesus having emotions makes people uncomfortable.

So if laughter is merely part of our mortal existence, does that mean laughter is one of those things we will be -- have to be -- purged of before we are let into Heaven? (Or for the Catholics, would laughter be a reason to send someone to Purgatory until they've been properly fitted for Heaven?) Not asking to be light-hearted about it ... rather, the verses you've quoted sound like laughter would be either scared out of us or shamed out of us. I was just curious as to the possible method or treatment required to correct it.

I can't think of what to add at this point, except to know your limits and for others to know their limits too. Me, I have moved on to other uhh moments such as, Was Jesus too holy to, um, "go?" (This thought brought to you by Rose George's incomparable The Big Necessity, which devotes several chapters to the homeless. Jesus was homeless for 3 years, after all. Book is heartily recommended although the terminology is Scatologically Correct -- like Anatomically Correct but with scat. If you hide at the sight of an occasional bad word you'll miss a serious book.) While the concept of "fairness" doesn't seem to fit the divine, it would seem unfair to me if our Lord had to deal with you-know-what but had to live without laughter.

It's at times like this that rapture teachings have a particular appeal: a hypothetical rapture would promptly settle whether children get an age-of-accountability exemption. If they fly, the answer's Yes. If they stay, the answer's No. Then these little ones left behind presumably have 7 years at most to get right with God (unless they won't make it to 13 and the age of Believer's Baptism -- or unless they're in an Adventist-influenced end-times scenario, which means only Jewish individuals get saved).

But I don't think we should be praying for someone, let alone a child, to be taken out of the world just so we don't have to worry about them anymore. It's not even a matter of praying that, say, a believer who's dying of cancer will be released from their suffering. Praying that a healthy child will lose a chance at the experiences and blessings God might have written for them in His book of days? Like I said, it sounds too close to praying against someone regardless of the motive.

Why not pray "God bless so-and-so" (salvation is one of those blessings, after all), or alternately pray that God will send someone into their lives who will lead them to the Lord?

In some past generations, excessive laughter was a sign of frivolity and worldliness.

In some of those past generations, they also hung, drowned, and crushed people based solely on the word of hysterical teenagers. Just sayin'.

I'll be the first to admit that we're just a little too obsessed with entertainment nowadays. But I think that striving to act more like Vulcans than human beings because "Jesus is coming!" is an overreaction. Preparing for the coming of bridegroom doesn't mean we need to sit in a little stone cell somewhere, sleeping on the cold floor, and taking vows of silence. God isn't going to revoke our salvation because we laughed at a joke.

And that reminds me of a pet peeve of mine. The world is not any crappier than it was 2,000 years ago. 2,000 years ago, the vast majority of people on the planet had never heard of Jesus and the dominate power on Earth was using Christians for human torches. So the trend amongst a lot of American Christians to start watching the skies any time an election doesn't go the way they want it to seems patently absurd to me. Jesus could come tomorrow. He might not come for another 10,000 years. Nagging Him will not get Him here one microsecond sooner.

[/offtopicrant]

As for Revelation, I don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that we'd be spending Judgment Day hanging out on Jesus' sofa, exchanging knock-knock jokes. I don't see how the serious gloom and doom of that particular book of the Bible and the lack of people yucking it up somehow means that's what everyday life is supposed to be like. And I don't see what the encounters with God/angels has to do with Jesus or us laughing either. Those were Dramatic and Important occasions in Biblical history. Of course those people were serious. I don't know about everyone else, but I wasn't expecting angels to show up and tell the Prophets the Biblical equivalent of a How-Many-People-Does-It-Take joke. The people in the Bible would have to have been idiots to do anything but throw themselves on their faces and hope there wasn't a lightning bolt with their name on it hanging up the skies somewhere.

I have unsaved family members with small children. So my reaction to the topic of children and original sin is not “oh goody.” It’s the earnest prayer, “Lord Jesus, take them now or save them [and their parents]. Don’t let these children grow up in a heathen environment.”

I think that statement is absolutely horrifying. I don't know whether there's a Get out of Hell Free card for young children, but even if there were, I'd never pray for them to die. We don't know those children's futures. Just because they're raised in a non-Christian home doesn't mean they'll never become Christians.

I have unsaved family members with small children. So my reaction to the topic of children and original sin is not “oh goody.” It’s the earnest prayer, “Lord Jesus, take them now or save them [and their parents]. Don’t let these children grow up in a heathen environment.”

I understand your concern for the salvation of little ones - I really do! I have a number of nieces and nephews who are in "heathen" environments, and I pray for their salvation.

But to pray that someone not grow up in a heathen environment? To someone like me, who came to faith at the ripe old age of 20, that statement's a little disquieting.

I know a lot of people who became Christians as adults, and they're strong in faith. Why can't God use a "heathen" background in someone's life? Surely He is glorified in the salvation of one of His own, whether that person is 2 or 52? People who've grown up in a non-Christian environment have stared the "Dark Side" in the face - they've lived it, perhaps for decades. Surely an experience of rescue and deliverance can inspire deep gratitude to the Author and Perfector of our faith?

Agree with Bookwyrm and Stargazer. God knows beforehand who will be and who will not belong to Him, and while children in a "heathen" family may adopt some bad things by the same token God can use that environment to bring folks to Him. Take the case of William Murray, son of the late Madalyn Murray O'Hare, who I would consider probably one of the most anti-Christian (or anti-religion for that matter) persons to walk the Earth. The reason you don't see prayer in school in the US is because of her. And that's just the tip of the iceberg...read up on her sometime, it's eye opening stuff. She worked full time against God, regardless of non-belief in Him, and her household must have been a very interesting place to be raised. Her son William eventually converted to Christianity and started his own church.

She had this to say after his conversion. "One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times...he is beyond human forgiveness".

Not a particularly nice lady, eh? But God chose her son, and there was not a thing on Earth she could do to prevent it. I find that rather heartening. I would urge caution when putting down blanket statements when discussing children being raised in non-Christian homes. Statements of that kind can easily be twisted and used against all of us, besides which it may turn out that those same kids could become great evangelists. We simply don't know.

You know, I don't think that people raised in heathen communities are the hardest to convert to Christianity, I mean not if they really know the truth and roots of Christianity. It is some of "us" that can be hard to convert. Some Christians are so set in their routine that if God tries to lead them into the next phase of their journey he might as well talk to a fence post then to them. They say "no thank you God, I don't want to go to the next hotel that has hot baths and soft beds for this hotel has cold baths and hard beds and that is the way we prefer it, so there"! "Besides I here the road from here to there is full of monsters and wild beasts and I've never gone on it to boot, so I'm just not going". It kind of makes you wonder where there hearts are really, doesn't it?

So here's a question, sort of going off Shadowlander's post....would it be better for a child to be raised in a home that was Christian (by which I mean that the parents honestly believe themselves to be saved) and unhealthy in some way or in a perfectly healthy home that was non-Christian?

220ChrisTian wrote:In some past generations, excessive laughter was a sign of frivolity and worldliness.

And it was also caused by an imbalance of your "humours", so naturally you must be bled out for a bit to settle them. The key word there is "excessive", not "laughter". People laugh for all kinds of reasons other than at a joke, and often in situations where we wouldn't think laughing to be "appropriate". People laugh when they are uncomfortable or sad as well as when they hear a really good joke.

The reason you don't see prayer in school in the US is because of her.

The reason we don't have mandatory prayer in public schools, anyway. Private prayer is perfectly acceptable. I had a Muslim friend in middle school who would quietly excuse herself from class a few times a day and go to a room the school had set aside for her so she could do her daily prayers. They were very supportive of her.

Religion in schools can get to be a messy topic in the States. I have no problem with people praying before they eat lunch or before the big math test or whenever. Of course, there will always be those few noisy people who complain about it. A close friend of mine is one such person. On several occasions in high school, she made disparaging comments that "so and so was praying in class" and how she/he "shouldn't be allowed to do that". When asked if the praying was disrupting the class in any way or if said person had pressured her to pray too, she had to answer no.
The real problems arise when one religious group in a school feels that they are being singled out. For instance, the SER (Society for Earth-based Religions) on my campus is not allowed to hold festival day circles on campus, but CRU (Campus Crusade for Christ) can use a campus lecture hall for weekly prayer meetings. Naturally, there is some tension out of the situation.

Most of the time, though, I think people just like to cause problems. There was an uproar when the public school system in my hometown made it mandatory for all students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in the morning, and when they made it mandatory that all elementary and middle school classes begin the day with 20-30 minutes of non-school related reading. People can gripe about anything!

"no thank you God, I don't want to go to the next hotel that has hot baths and soft beds for this hotel has cold baths and hard beds and that is the way we prefer it, so there"! "Besides I here the road from here to there is full of monsters and wild beasts and I've never gone on it to boot, so I'm just not going"

Good gravy 220Christian, you have to give God more credit than that. God gets through to people at different times in their lives. The idea of the unsaved dying is horrific, absolutely but your responses to such a thing are almost equally horrific. Do want you can to help, pray for them but pray that God's will is done, don't pray preventive prayers. That's not cool. It's the Holy Spirit's work.
Also, how is excessive laughter wordly? If you ask me most Christians these days are far too serious and have forgotten how to laugh. After all, laughter is the best physical medicine.

In some past generations, excessive laughter was a sign of frivolity and worldliness.

In some of those past generations, they also hung, drowned, and crushed people based solely on the word of hysterical teenagers. Just sayin'.

One of the hallmarks of going to London is visiting Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, The tower of London etc. At each of these places you will find sentry boxes, each with a prim and proper guard, standing to attention, complete with red coat, black trousers, bearskin busby hat, expressionless poker faced expression and rifle. Now these are people who are not allowed to laugh excessively. Or out loud at all.

Tourists like myself like to get their photos taken with such guards. I remarked soothingly to one such guard that being shot (with a camera) hadn't hurt him, and that he needn't bother trying to track me down since I live in Australia which is too far away for him to catch me. The guard couldn't help himself. He actually smiled discretely , which I understand is allowable without being court martialled.

Now Buddha is depicted laughing, whilst other revered figures aren't allowed to be depicted at all. If the idea of a laughing Jesus is so horrendous, isn't he at least allowed a discrete smile at appropriate times?

Now what is meant by Gnosticism? I don't mind being against Religious Fundamentalism, whatever the persuasion. But Gnosticism sounds like the sort of freethinkers of the 1600's who thought they could get away with murder because they considered themselves perfect. People like Geronimus Corneliusz on the 'Batavia'.

Since we're bringing books I'll just mention one last one, with a caveat that I haven't read it yet: Bright-sided by Barbara Ehrenreich, about "the relentless promotion of positive thinking." At a quick glance it seems to have a chapter for everyone on this thread: comforters-of-Job who show up when you have cancer; God wants you to be rich; how Calvinism* made people sick; how the Positive Thinking movement is a reaction to it; and how modern folk today are too much about the Happy Happy.

*as the Calvinists on the board frantically flip through the pages and say, "This isn't OUR Calvinism!"

...

As to children dying before they can get saved, that's one of the themes of the last book in the Left Behind series a.k.a. Kingdom Come. (Dr. Ransom and I are the only people I know of on NarniaWeb who've even read the book.) In KC, if you aren't saved by the day you hit your Legal Adult birthday, you die and go to, um, your eternity. No exceptions. In fact they're the only people who CAN die in the whole book. Adults are saved and can't die. Saved children can't die. So when there's a funeral, you know that some parents just buried an evil child.

...

Sort of off-topic, but I've gotta say that the A of G did have some of the best one-liners.

"If you can't live on 100 percent of your income, you can't live on 90 percent, so you might as well tithe your ten percent."

"The distance between the head and the heart is eternity."

"Martyr envy doesn't help martyrs."

Regarding the nature of children:

If they're born good, why do we have to teach them to behave? No one has to teach a child to say "No!" but we have to help them learn to share, say thank you, etc.

Just a thought.

Why did Jesus die on the cross if he did not want happiness for his people?

Oooh... I'd be careful with assumptions like that. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus died to make us happy. He died to redeem us, in obedience to the Father, who orchestrated all this for the primary purpose of His glory (Ephesians 1:6). The reality is that my salvation is not about me at all; it's about the glory that it brings the Father. I love this truth because it frees me to get my focus on something greater than myself and my good.

I think Jesus was serious-minded.

Which is fine, but notice how many times you say "I think" in your reasoning above? You aren't supplying much Scripture to support your views, and have not addressed the Scripture that has been quoted in defense of God having a sense of humor and Jesus expressing that in His earthly ministry. How do you answer those?

Yes, Jesus was 100% human. But let’s not make Jesus so human that we forget He’s also 100% God.

What I am not understanding is where you're getting the picture of a humorless God. The Bible explicitly says that God laughs:

The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.

the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming.

So if Jesus is 100% God, why wouldn't He laugh? God does!

But I hesitate to equate joy with humor or laughter. We can have deep, abiding joy in the middle of great stress and heartache, when laughter seems completely inappropriate.

But it does not follow that laughter is always inappropriate, 220. I actually agree with you that joy doesn't *just* mean laughter (though it may include it).

What you haven't addressed is Ransom's comment about the objective fact that sometimes when Jesus spoke to the people, He did so in a humorous way, using hyperbole and sarcasm. He intended His hearers to see the humor of it. What do you think of that?

You've conceded that laughter and humor themselves are not sinful. Why, then, is it "wrong" in your mind to think Jesus may have laughed?

If you think it not befitting His dignity, consider the God who submitted to being physically born (a humiliating process if there ever was one), and in a dirty stable on top of that. Jesus' dignity never impaired His humanity!

But I’m still wondering how much excessive laughter is a modern phenomenon.

But no one here is advocating "excessive" laughter. Now you're arguing against something we're not even espousing.

[Also note that demons laugh. I wonder why.]

So does God. I wonder why

Christian comedians [an oxymoron in my book].

Your book's one thing and you're welcome to it, but what about The Book? What does it say about humor and laughter? The Bible is anything but humorless, and God's people shouldn't be either!

Jesus is coming. No one laughs in Revelation. No one. Because nothing in that book is funny.

So does that discount the parts of the Bible that are funny, and intended to be so?

Be careful not to elevate certain bits of Scripture over others, according to your personal preferences. It's a dangerous practice.

All these times, what are the people’s reactions?

*sigh* You're arguing a moot point. No one's saying that angelic encounters are giggle-worthy, good grief! Why do you try to paint our position that way? None of that negates the reality that parts of the Bible ARE funny, as God intended. Not that we take it lightly or as a joke, not at all. But you can't deny the humor there. Bringing up serious/humorless parts doesn't make the humorous parts invalid, 220. In fact, it supports our point — the Bible contains everything we need. Everything!

There's also a time for serious prayer, worship, and soul-searching. And right now, based on world events around us, I prefer the latter.

And you are welcome to do that. But I don't take my cue from the world around me; it does not dictate my behavior.

I discovered a book online yesterday called The Laughing Jesus. The authors argue against religious fundamentalism and for Gnostic spirituality. What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts on this is that you are using a dishonest, bait-and-switch debate tactic that really just exposes the weakness of your own position. Why, 220, do you consistently build up these strawmen and set them up as your opposition's belief? You fail to answer many points we've made, but maybe we won't notice if you Google a really bad example of goofy Christendom and try to connect our position with it, to make it ridiculous? Oooh oooh, that's so bad, that must mean our points, related by the merest thread to that travesty, are bad, oh no! I suppose it's easier than really addressing the points one by one, though. Bait and switch.

Have you been around children lately, pre-school and primary age?... Yes, children have a sinful nature, but many gravitate toward good, humble people and seem to reject those who aren't. They understand and accept the gospel without arguments.

Have you? Some kids that age that I know have told their parents they aren't Christians (the kids, that is) and don't want to be. Of course it's just a phase of rebellion, but a lot of kids do put up arguments to the Gospel message. They aren't uniformly little angels. In fact, the ones I know can be very sweet but they can also be little monsters. I wouldn't like to base my argument on the goodness of children; it is so easily contradicted.

I have unsaved family members with small children. So my reaction to the topic of children and original sin is not “oh goody.”

I think you are deliberately misrepresenting my statement there; that's dishonest, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't. It's extremely clear that what I meant was "oh goody, we're going to have a discussion about original sin" — NOT, as you accuse, that I'm all "oh goody, children have a sin nature, let's enjoy this!" My excited anticipation is solely for the good rousing debate the topic of original sin can bring. Did anyone else misunderstand me? Just want to be crystal clear here

It’s the earnest prayer, “Lord Jesus, take them now or save them [and their parents]. Don’t let these children grow up in a heathen environment.”

Hmm, you're right, perhaps it would be better to pray that God strikes them dead instead... Is that seriously what you mean when you pray God will "take them now"? Yikes! Don't ever pray for me and my family, please

How can you justify such a prayer? Where in the Bible does anyone pray like you do, wishing pain and heartache on your friends that you find worldly and asking God to kill babies whose parents aren't saved? I confess I'm really shocked at this and find it highly disturbing. Have you really thought through what you are praying?

And I don't know where you find Scripture to support the notion that babies are innocent and therefore go to heaven. We are sinful from conception because of the sin nature passed on through Adam. Babies have a sin nature just like everyone else; no one has a clean slate. And if you take your ideas to their logical endpoint, babies should be killed to ensure that they don't grow up in heathen environments. Eep.

And I don't know where you find Scripture to support the notion that babies are innocent and therefore go to heaven. We are sinful from conception because of the sin nature passed on through Adam. Babies have a sin nature just like everyone else; no one has a clean slate. And if you take your ideas to their logical endpoint, babies should be killed to ensure that they don't grow up in heathen environments. Eep.

*jumps in late with a question I can't resist asking*
First, let me say I agree with you on quite a few of the points you made earlier. But I'm not sure I agree on this one.... Isn't there such a thing as an 'age of accountability'? If babies don't even understand heaven and hell, does that mean they get an automatic pass to hell [if they die while they are babies]? Isn't God merciful, especially to those who don't understand yet?

Poor little babies!

Welcome to the discussion, Lady G

Some questions back at you:

I'm familiar with the notion of an age of accountability — in fact, I was taught it growing up — but is this concept Scripturally supportable?

Is our salvation based on what we do (i.e. understand heaven and hell, for example) or on what Christ has done?

As for God being merciful, He has mercy on whom He chooses (Romans 9). I don't think we can stretch that to mean that babies get an automatic pass to heaven. Ultimately only He knows, and it is entirely up to Him.

You do have to take into account what I said in my last post about the logical endpoint of the idea that babies automatically go to heaven. If that is the case, we should kill them, rather than risk them growing up to reject God.

The problem with that is, they've already rejected God. The Bible says we ALL sinned in Adam. Past tense! We all partake of Adam's sin nature.

The thing is, we don't go to hell for specific sins we commit. Those are just symptoms of the real problem — our sin nature. We don't have a sin nature because we sin; we sin because we have a sin nature. It's a fine distinction, but a very important one.

And while we are in our unregenerate state (no matter what age), slaves to sin, we are unable to choose God or even to comprehend heaven and hell, the Gospel, etc. No unsaved person "understands." The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing! So age doesn't even really matter when it comes to our ability, in ourselves, to choose God. None of us have it, no matter how old or young we are.

That is why salvation is entirely God's work from beginning to end. He saves us and gives us the faith to respond to what He has already worked in our hearts. Faith is a gift (Ephesians 2). I believe He chooses to save some babies and not others, just as He does with the rest of humanity. I can trust Him to be perfectly just and right in all He does!