home
RSS
January 25th, 2012
12:52 PM ET

My take: Reclaiming Jesus’ sense of humor

Editor’s note: James Martin, SJ, is a Jesuit priest, culture editor of America magazine and author of "Between Heaven and Mirth: Why Joy, Humor, and Laughter are at the Heart of the Spiritual Life," from which this article is adapted.

By James Martin, Special to CNN

Here’s a serious question about levity: The Bible clearly paints a picture of Jesus of Nazareth as a clever guy, but he never seems to laugh, much less crack a smile. Did Jesus really have no sense of humor; didn't he ever laugh?

Well, one difficulty with finding humor in the New Testament is that what was seen as funny to those living in Jesus' time may not seem funny to us.

For someone in first-century Palestine, the premise (or “setup” as a comic would say) was probably more amusing than the punch line. "The parables were amusing in their exaggeration or hyperbole," Amy-Jill Levine, a New Testament scholar at Vanderbilt University, said in an interview. “The idea that a mustard seed would have sprouted into a big bush that birds would build their nests in would be humorous."

People in Jesus’ day would probably have laughed at many of his intentionally funny illustrations: for example, the idea that someone would have lit a lamp and put it under a basket, or that a person would have built a house on sand or that a father would give a child stones instead of bread.

But contemporary Christians may be missing the humor that Jesus intended and that his audience understood.

Father Daniel J. Harrington, SJ, professor of New Testament at Boston College, agrees. "Humor is very culture bound," he told me. "The Gospels have a lot of controversy stories and honor-shame situations. I suspect that the early readers found these stories hilarious, whereas we in a very different social setting miss the point entirely."

Let’s repeat that: hilarious.

Or maybe we just know the stories too well. Too many Gospel stories have become stale, like overly repeated jokes. "The words seem to us like old coins," wrote Elton Trueblood, a 20th-century Quaker scholar, "in which the edges have been worn smooth and the engravings have become almost indistinguishable."

In his book "The Humor of Christ," Trueblood recounts the tale of his 4-year-old son hearing the Gospel story of seeing the speck of dust in your neighbor's eye and ignoring the log in your own and laughing uproariously. His son recognized the humor that someone else, who might have heard the story dozens of times, might miss.

There are other indications in the Gospels that Jesus of Nazareth had a lively sense of humor. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is castigated for not being as serious as John the Baptist. "The Son of Man came eating and drinking," Jesus said, "and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard.’ ” In other words, the Gospels record criticism of Jesus for being too high-spirited.

"Jesus and his disciples," said the Rev. Richard J. Clifford, SJ, a biblical scholar at Boston College, "are criticized for living it up!"

After his time on Earth, some of this playfulness may have been downplayed by the Gospel writers, who, scholars say, may have felt pressured by the standards of their day to present a more serious Jesus.

"There were probably things that were compressed and shortened, and some of the humor may have been leached out," Clifford said. "But I see Jesus as a witty fellow, someone who is serious without being grim. When the disciples argue among themselves, Jesus brings wit into the discussion."

Jesus also embraces others with a sense of humor. In the beginning of the Gospel of John comes the remarkable story of Nathanael, who has been told by his friends that the Messiah is from Nazareth. Nathanael responds, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

This is an obvious joke about how backwards the town was; Nazareth was seen as a backwater with only a few hundred people.

And what did Jesus say in response? Does he castigate Nathanael for mocking his hometown?

Jesus says nothing of the sort! Nathanael's humor seems to delight him.

"Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit," Jesus said. In other words, here’s someone I can trust.

Nathanael then became one of the apostles. Jesus’ welcoming of Nathanael into his inner circle may be the clearest indication that Jesus had a sense of humor.

Besides, what kind of a person has zero sense of humor? I asked Eileen Russell, a clinical psychologist based in New York who specializes in the role of resilience, how she would describe the psychological makeup of a person without a sense of humor.

“A person without a sense of humor would lead to that person having significant social problems,” she said. “He would most likely have difficulty making social connections, because he wouldn’t be able to read signals from other people, and would be missing cues.”

That’s the opposite of what we know about Jesus from the Gospels. Yet that's just the kind of one-sided image that many Christians have of Jesus. It shows up in Christian books, sermons and in artwork. It influences the way that Christians think about Jesus, and therefore influences their lives as Christians.

If part of being human includes having a sense of humor, and if Jesus was “fully human,” as Christians believe, he must have had a fully developed sense of humor. Indeed, his sense of humor may be one unexamined reason for his ability to draw so many disciples around him with ease.

It’s time to set aside the notion that Jesus was a humorless, grim-faced, dour, unsmiling prude. Let’s begin to recover his humor and, in the process, his humanity.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Catholic Church • TV

soundoff (1,367 Responses)
  1. momoya

    Of course Jesus has a sense of humor; he talked about the flood as if it actually happened!! 🙂

    January 27, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • momoya

      meant to say "had" the s key is next to the d key

      January 27, 2012 at 11:08 am |
    • John 16

      Momoya,
      You were right the first time. Jesus HAS a sense of humor and it's a good thing for me that He does. He's alive and well and sitting at the right hand of the Father.

      January 27, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
  2. Judaism (Itself a Counterfeit Religion) and All Counterfeits Thereof (Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Xian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) Must Be Eradicated!!!

    Too bad we can't just send all these militant, belligerent, shove-it-down-your-throat, proselytizing Judeo-Christo-Islamo-Fascist @$$h0les to the MOON! The remaining religions (such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American religions, etc.) could easily coexist (and WITH all flavors of non-believers, pagans, etc.) because they're not trying to FORCE their crap on everyone else, nor do adherents of these latter, more tolerant religions thwart progress/scientific discovery. (Reference that brain-dead idiot, Chad, below).

    January 27, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • John 16

      Why would you waste your time in this blog?? I just don't get why people who not believe and don't want to would spend time blogging about something they hate. How have christians hurt you in anyway?? You are guilty of doing just what you say they do. Just walk away and forget about it. I bet you don't even know why you hate so much.

      January 27, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
    • Judaism (Itself a Counterfeit Religion) and All Counterfeits Thereof (Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Xian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) Must Be Eradicated!!!

      I was brainwashed with Judeo-Christo-Fascist fairy tales from the time I was born until I got into college. I have a right to despise this ridiculous, supersti-tious faith and its roots. These religions have led to so much war, murdering, torturing, stealing of land, gold, and a wide variety of other mistreatment of fellow man, which is plenty reason to HATE! No other religion except the belligerent Jewish faith and all of its knock-offs can claim so much violence, aggression, instigation and hatred toward mankind (of course in the GUISE of being a peaceful and benevolent religion)! Identify the source of the problem and nip it in the bud!

      January 27, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
  3. Lori

    Psalms 2 . . . "He who sits in the heavens shall laugh". Jesus laughed, and laughs still. 🙂

    January 27, 2012 at 5:35 am |
    • Your god is a sadist

      Laughing while most of his creation burns for all eternity. Nice.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • John 16

      Sadist,
      If you believe most will burn for eternity.....When you are with your friends do you laugh and enjoy yourself? So does our Lord. He is a true friend who will never leave or forsake us. He has great sorrow for those who choose another friend who only leads them to distruction.

      January 27, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
  4. Chad

    Excellent article. Jesus can certainly come across as very harsh in the gospels, but if you look at the devotion of the people around Him (other than Judas of course) and the love that they have for Him, that has to imply he was certainly pleasant to be around.

    January 26, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      King Dolt is in. Chad you never answered my final posts when I was destroying your defense of the Genesis creation myth. Please respond with your best shot:

      REPOST:
      Chad, I am glad that you finally concede defeat on at least one topic, that of Gilgamesh vs. Noah. Now if Noah happens to be just another version of popular regional folklore, then what else in the Judaic tradition might be (1) borrowed or (2) incorrect? Did you ever read the bible from beginning to end with the purpose of trying to analyze one topic, say, the origins of “hell” in the text, the evolution of the concept of “hell”? If you had, you might notice that “hell” started out as “sheol,” a place for ALL dead regardless of moral character during this life. It wasn’t until later in the biblical timeline (much closer to, if not precisely in the New Testament) that “hell” started taking on the concept of eternal fiery punishment and such. And since we’re referencing Wikipedia, please search for “Sheol” and maybe even “Hades” while you’re in there. If the concept of hell could change over time, doesn’t this contradict one of the seemingly favorite claims in Christianity that god is unchanging? Why would god suddenly (or perhaps over the course of thousands of years) change the purpose of some alleged underworld? Not to mention that underworlds existed in Greek and Persian religions, for just two nearby examples.

      Now as to your other points, you are still making too many assumptions.
      “you didnt comment on the likely hood of illiterate goat herders 3500 years ago just happening to get the order exactly correct..”
      You have NO PROOF that this completely arbitrary order is correct. NONE. Which is why I postulated that you wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference if those ignorant goatherds had written it in a different arbitrary order.

      Infinite regression – you are stuck with the same puzzle. Who/what created god? Nothing could have existed if there weren’t something before god to create god.

      You should read Dawkins’ book that I listed above and you should reread my comments from above regarding fossil finds. The record is not complete because we have not and probably cannot ever find a “complete” record because (very importantly) the conditions that it requires for fossils to have been created are very specific (i.e., the right amount and the right type of sediments have to be available at the right time with all the right geological forces necessary to move said sediments into the right place in order to preserve bones, etc.) Such forces include floods, regular flows of rivers, earthquakes, etc. The list goes on and on beyond what I as a layman could explain, which is why you need to carefully read more literature before you go quoting random sources pretending to be intelligent.

      Almost without a doubt someone named Jesus lived in Galilee during Herod’s and Pilate’s reigns. No doubt this person caused a big stir, but the accounts of his actions are diverse and at times conflicting, and were FILTERED by Catholic opportunists, not to mention translated through more than one language from their originals. Not to mention they were written down decades AFTER any eyewitness accounts actually occurred. So how accurate could they be after all that? Claiming historical accuracy in regard to the fact that someone named Jesus existed and that someone named Jesus was killed brutally on a cross is WAY DIFFERENT than claiming accuracy of all accounts in those writings, such as alleged “miracles” which defy the laws of physics that you seem so ready to cite as part of your proofs.

      “The fact that we have a universal understanding of good and evil.”
      Morals are not absolute. Murder is not absolutely wrong. What about self-defense? What about war (I only mention this because Yahweh in the OT was so willing to have his Israeli children carry out wars in his name). Also “good” and “evil” are quite relative. What is “good” to a hungry lion is when it kills an antelope that was too slow to escape its pursuit, whereas that same act is “evil” to the antelope. See where I’m going with this? If you need a human example, just replace the antelope with an innocent hiker in the woods, and the lion with a momma bear frightened for her cubs.
      Religion is not necessary to teach ethics. Admittedly the fairy tale stories help children understand more readily, but even “Native Americans” had codes of ethics without ANY exposure to Israeli philosophy.

      I hope you see things differently now. If not, then maybe at least that seed of doubt about your precious Noah story will help you further question the origins of the mythology that you put so much stock in. Nice chatting with you, friend. Peace.

      ...............

      Sorry, I had meant for my last post to be final, but then I couldn’t resist destroying one of the other points that you seemed so adamant about.

      “Order of species appearance in Genesis: Plants-Fish-Birds-Land Animals (including reptiles)-Man”

      First these are not “species,” they are BROAD categories that would have so readily occurred to any ignorant goatherd who knew very little about the world. Where are the dinosaurs? Are you saying we have to believe that they MEANT dinosaurs to be reptiles or some general land animal? What about pterodactyls? They flew you know. What about birds that live on land and don’t fly? What about whales and dolphins? They are not fish. What about fish that can walk on land? What about microorgani-sms? Ancient people had NO IDEA that any of these tiny “creatures” existed! Regardless of that fact, where would a VIRUS be pigeonholed in your 5 broad categories? A virus is not even technically alive. What about ri-ckettsia, which is practically a hybrid between bacteria and virus? You cannot convince me that these ignorant biblical authors just happened to have MEANT..oh, just everything that’s out there.

      Second, ASSUMING that the fossil record shows an order va-guely representative of the arbitrary order that you like to defend, please note the aforementioned premise, established by myself and Mr. Dawkins, that the fossil record cannot be expected to show a complete representation of ALL life forms that ever existed. Are we to believe that a sample of every possible living thing just happened to get caught in a landslide whose chemical composition was just such that fossils could be formed without decomposing? No, but assuming for the sake of argument that we could expect such a miracle, think about the PROBABILITY of being able to put 5 choices in some “correct” order. That’s merely 120:1….very LOW odds. A monkey could get the answer “right” in very few tries!

      January 26, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • Chad

      Hmm, never known you to destroy anything other than your own positions, must have missed it..

      ReligionIs4Dolts “Gilgamesh vs. Noah”
      =>as I said before, it is understandable that legends/myth’s such as the Gilgamesh contain historical events. The Gilgamesh never claims to be true a true account of history, the Bible does.

      @ReligionIs4Dolts “Did you ever read the bible from beginning to end with the purpose of trying to analyze one topic, say, the origins of “hell” in the text, the evolution of the concept of “hell”? If you had, you might notice that “hell” started out as “sheol,” a place for ALL dead regardless of moral character during this life. It wasn’t until later in the biblical timeline (much closer to, if not precisely in the New Testament) that “hell” started taking on the concept of eternal fiery punishment and such.”

      =>you’re saying that BEFORE the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Messiah, dead people went to a resting/waiting place.

      Then Jesus Christ died, preached to the dead giving them a chance to accept Him as Lord and Savior, and was then resurrected.

      Following that event, if a person dies with out accepting Jesus they go to hell, a different kind of place than where dead people went before Jesus came?

      Is that what you are saying is weird or inconsistent? lol

      And yes, I have read the bible many, many, many times. Not nearly as much as others I known, but many, many times.

      @ReligionIs4Dolts “You have NO PROOF that this completely arbitrary order [of creation, water-fish-birds-land animals-humans] is correct. NONE.”
      =>true, I have no proof other than the complete fossil record..

      @ReligionIs4Dolts “The [fossil] record is not complete because we have not and probably cannot ever find a “complete” record because (very importantly) the conditions that it requires for fossils to have been created are very specific”

      =>hmm.. then we have an even more amazing situation.. because we actually have millions and millions of fossils, all showing stable species for millions of years in the fossil record. An docu menting millions of species over billions of years. So, obviously fossils do exist, and they do docu ment millions of species, that remain unchanged for millions of years.

      Isnt it amazing that the “incompleteness of the fossil record” always corresponds to the transition periods between major animal groups? A period that due to the large morphological change, would require the largest number of species to span?

      This whole “the fossil record is incomplete, that’s why we cant show evolution” is total baloney. There are millions of fossils. There have been eleven fossils of Archaeopteryx for example. All belonging to a single species. I would say that points to a pretty complete fossil record.

      January 26, 2012 at 10:55 pm |
    • Chad

      missed one...

      @ReligionIs4Dolts “Morals are not absolute. Murder is not absolutely wrong.”
      =>I don’t really argue this point, I’m happy demonstrating that atheists believe murder isn’t morally wrong.

      January 26, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Chad you're such a F_ING idiot! What do you not understand about how if a neighboring society already had an identical story WRITTEN DOWN 1150 years before the first possible chance that Jews could have written down the exact same story, then that PROVES that Jews just ripped it off and are therefore NOT any kind of "chosen" or special people...and that their mythical religion is TOTAL GARBAGE?

      Also, what do you not understand about how fossils are formed? I have tried to be patient with you, but I will explain it one more time, DOLT! There is NO WAY that the fossil record CAN be complete because there is NO WAY for a sample of EVERY SINGLE LIFE FORM that every existed to have been magically caught in a landslide, earthquake, flood, which just happened to have the precise chemical composition to preserve bones. Geological events of this type (landslides, earthquakes, etc.) are not THAT common, and in addition, not every sample of dirt everywhere in the world happens to be the right chemical composition.

      And when it comes to Sheol being magically transformed into Hell (for your convenience).....BS! I thought your stupid "god" was already pi$$ed off enough at man when "adam and eve" were thrown out of the "garden"...or perhaps by the time "god" destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah. There is no evidence that "god" suddenly became MORE pi$$ed off....enough to magically create this mythical fiery lake. You are so full of $h|+ (like most Christo-Fascists) you just keep making it up as you go!

      And the ONLY case I am using as an example of when murder isn't wrong is SELF-DEFENSE....>STUPID A$$H0LE!!!!! FVK U!

      January 26, 2012 at 11:22 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      I know as a Christo-Fascist you are well accustomed to TWISTING words.....stop twisting mine, DOLT!

      January 26, 2012 at 11:23 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      And you obviously either didn't read the last paragraph regarding PROBABILITY....or you have NO understanding of this subject. STUPID FVK! If a monkey could get the order to match some ARBITRARY order that YOU THINK is "correct" then how much easier would that be for a human....even a stupid goatherd in the Middle East? And COMBINE that with the undeniable FACT that the fossil record is INCOMPLETE and nowhere even close to complete.

      BTW, DOLT, where are you references to "prove" that the fossil record (such as we have it) even comes close to being what you think it should be (in your stupid, overly-broad categories)?!?!?

      January 26, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Jeezus, I just realized I have to say THIS now because you're so STUPID....
      The bible DOES NOT count as a reference to defend the supposed "matching order" of the fossil record. You must provide references from paleontologists who have actually seen and doc-umented this alleged "fact" within the past couple of centuries. Ah but then you will also have to provide references from similarly educated paleontologists, geologists and the like to prove that the fossil record is indeed "complete" as you think it is. I have already provided my reference to prove otherwise: Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker" is a good start.

      January 26, 2012 at 11:33 pm |
    • Chad

      @ReligionIs4Dolts "if a neighboring society already had an identical story WRITTEN DOWN 1150 years before the first possible chance that Jews could have written down the exact same story, then that PROVES that Jews just ripped it off"

      =>lol, Gilgamesh was written as a story, based on actual events,it never claims to be true. The Bible is written to record history, those actual events.
      Cooper wrote "Last of the Mohicans" in 1826.
      Anderson wrote "The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War" in 2006

      so, the French and Indian war is a myth that Anderson stole? lol

      @ReligionIs4Dolts "DOLT! There is NO WAY that the fossil record CAN be complete because there is NO WAY for a sample of EVERY SINGLE LIFE FORM that every existed to have been magically caught in a landslide, earthquake, flood, which just happened to have the precise chemical composition to preserve bones"

      =>your arguments for an incomplete fossil record are presented to prop up your "the reason we dont have any fossils of transitions between major groups of animals (like fish-reptile), is because the fossil record is incomplete"
      It's a nonsense argument.
      There are millions of fish fossils, and millions of reptile fossils, but the millions of species that would have to exist between the two groups somehow all escaped fossilization? pretty selective "incompleteness" lol

      @ReligionIs4Dolts "And when it comes to Sheol being magically transformed into Hell "
      =>God loves us, and hopes everyone will take advantage of the free gift of life that Jesus Christ presents.
      Before His death that offer didnt exist.
      The dead awaited the preaching of Christ.
      You go to "hell" (separation from God) only if you reject Christ,

      "Choose life and not death! " – God ;Deuteronomy 30, 2 KIngs18

      January 27, 2012 at 8:01 am |
    • Chad

      @ReligionIs4Dolts "The bible DOES NOT count as a reference to defend the supposed "matching order" of the fossil record. "
      =>Genesis: Plants-Fish-Birds-Land Animals (including reptiles)-Man
      =>fossil record: same

      If you want to believe that illiterate goat herders 3500 years ago just happened to get it right, be my guest.
      If you want to believe that a million monkeys left in a room with a typewriter will eventually bang out War and Peace.. be my guest.
      If you are arguing that the fossil record doesnt show Plants-Fish-Birds-Land Animals (including reptiles)-Man, then you need to read a book on paleontology.

      January 27, 2012 at 8:07 am |
    • MarcTTF

      @Chad
      Are you saying that the similarities between the stories in the bible and the epic of Gilgamesh are purely coincidental?

      January 27, 2012 at 9:27 am |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      “lol, Gilgamesh was written as a story, based on actual events,it never claims to be true. The Bible is written to record history, those actual events.”

      STUPID! Prove where Gilgamesh says it was “written as a story” and prove where Genesis says it is “written to record history”! You’re such a moron that you have NO CONCEPT of time! A more correct analogy for today would be a moron like you taking a story originally written down in 862 AD, changing the wording a little bit and publishing it as if it were a TRUE ACCOUNT of history! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Don’t you see how utterly ridiculous that is? As if the author(s) who wrote down the original account in 862 had no idea what they were talking about, but that YOU, 1150 years later, suddenly DO know what you’re talking about? HA HA HA HA HA!

      “Cooper wrote "Last of the Mohicans" in 1826.
      Anderson wrote "The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War" in 2006
      so, the French and Indian war is a myth that Anderson stole? Lol”
      You only hurt yourself there, DOLT! Cooper’s piece is undoubtedly more authoritative because it quotes its numerous sources, and is not merely a 1-to-1 rip-off/rehashing of the “Last of the Mohicans.”

      “=>your arguments for an incomplete fossil record are presented to prop up your "the reason we dont have any fossils of transitions between major groups of animals (like fish-reptile), is because the fossil record is incomplete"
      It's a nonsense argument.
      There are millions of fish fossils, and millions of reptile fossils, but the millions of species that would have to exist between the two groups somehow all escaped fossilization? pretty selective "incompleteness" lol”

      I’m not even talking about “transitional fossils” here DUMB @$$! I am focusing on refuting your ridiculous claim that the fossil record somehow just magically “looks like” it’s in the order that you claim Genesis says it should be in.
      Now focus, RETARD….THINK for just a second. (1) Haven’t you ever buried a pet that died? Did you ever happen to dig it up years later and notice that there is NOTHING LEFT? That’s because even bones decay when conditions are not right to preserve them. (2) Are you SO RETARDED as to believe that an example of EVERY LIFE FORM that has ever existed has also happened to get itself buried? (3) And that doesn’t mean just buried any old way in any old dirt. Fossilization requires SPECIFIC circ-umstances. Read some books on paleontology before you continue with this STUPID argument.
      AND ONCE AGAIN YOU PROVIDE NO REFERENCES OTHER THAN YOUR STUPID BIBLE!

      “Before His death that offer didnt exist.
      The dead awaited the preaching of Christ.
      You go to "hell" (separation from God) only if you reject Christ,
      "Choose life and not death! " – God ;Deuteronomy 30, 2 KIngs18”

      Just keep making it up as you go! DOLT!

      “If you want to believe that illiterate goat herders 3500 years ago just happened to get it right, be my guest.
      If you want to believe that a million monkeys left in a room with a typewriter will eventually bang out War and Peace.. be my guest.
      If you are arguing that the fossil record doesnt show Plants-Fish-Birds-Land Animals (including reptiles)-Man, then you need to read a book on paleontology.”

      From Wikipedia: (en.wikipedia.o r g/wiki/Fossil)
      Rarity of fossils
      “Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organi-sm to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organi-sm becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.
      Due to the combined ef-fect of taphonomic processes and simple mathematical chance, fossilization tends to favor organi-sms with hard body parts, those that were widespread, and those that existed for a long time before going extinct. On the other hand, it is very unusual to find fossils of small, soft bodied, geographically restricted and geologically ephemeral organi-sms, because of their relative rarity and low likelihood of preservation.
      Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organi-sm will leave behind a fossil. Eldredge and Gould developed their theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record. Furthermore, in the strictest sense, nearly all fossils are "transitional," due to the improbability that any given fossil represents the absolute termination of an evolutionary path.” (end Wiki quote)

      You also did not address my point about MICROORGANI-SMS. They are neither plants, nor reptiles, nor land animals, nor bird, nor man….nor did your ignorant goatherds even KNOW about such things. And yet microorgani-sms are found in the fossil record (as well as in our living environment today).

      Not only that, DOLT, but the bible says the earth was created in SEVEN DAYS, not 4 BILLION YEARS. You can’t just change the story when it’s convenient for you (like after an affluence of evidence has surfaced to insist that the world is much, much older than a mere 6000 years). You’ll probably say “Oh but they didn’t MEAN seven days literally.” BS! Then why go to all the trouble to try explaining that light separated darkness to form a DAY?

      YOU are the one who needs to read more books (other than your stupid bible). Include books on paleontology, geology, astronomy, cosmology…even some Western civilization will do you some good…. particularly those books NOT written by opportunistic Christo-Fascists who are only trying to support myopic, biblical “accounts”. Your brainwashing goes deep, DOLT. Admittedly you provide me (and other intelligent people on these forums) with hours of entertainment, but it is SICKENING because idiots like you are holding back the human race!

      January 27, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      ""As if the author(s) who wrote down the original account in 862 had no idea what they were talking about, but that YOU, 1150 years later, suddenly DO know what you’re talking about?"

      And before you go and twist this around as a meaningless counterargument......This does not apply to modern scientific refutations of ancient, ludicrous biblical "knowledge" because we DO KNOW NOW that people thousands of years ago had virtually NO knowledge of scientific matters and held very limited views of such ridiculous things as a "flat earth" or a universe in which everything revolved around the earth, etc.

      In a time frame (such as between 2150 BC and 1000 BC) in which scientific knowledge was virtually NONEXISTENT and STATIC, I CAN make the claim I did above, where it would be ludicrous to assume that the Babylonians didn't know what they were doing when they wrote down Gilgamesh but then magically the Jews DID somehow.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      "If you want to believe that a million monkeys left in a room with a typewriter will eventually bang out War and Peace.. be my guest."

      You're such an IDIOT, Chad! "War and Peace" has approx. 560,000 words in it. Do you know how to calculate probabilities of combinations and permutations? Do you even know what a FACTORIAL is? Do you have any idea how astronomically, incalculably HUGE 560,000 FACTORIAL is? My calculator can't handle it, but it can handle 5 FACTORIAL, which is a mere 120, which means the odds of putting any five items in some expected pattern is only 120-to-1. Your "War and Peace" analogy fails miserably, DOLT!

      And the already-weak 120-to-1 odds that 5 items could be placed in some expected pattern is further weakened by the fact that you have NO EVIDENCE and cite NO REFERENCES of current fossil record accounts that the fossil record indeed follows this ARBITRARY pattern (as if it even this arbitrary pattern you speak of matters).

      It doesn't matter because your OVERLY-GENERAL CATEGORIES are not species and are NOT ALL-INCLUSIVE of every type of life form that has ever existed, which is why I made the point about how whales and dolphins are not fish and how pterodactyls are not birds and microorganism, especially viruses and rickettsia, do not fall into any of your overly-general categories. Also, b t w, what is a lichen? Plant or fungus? Fungus isn't even mentioned in the bible, and it is not a plant.

      Also you do not account for how "7 DAYS" is not equal to 4+ BILLION YEARS!

      People like you with such consp-icuous mental deficiencies should be LOCKED UP!

      January 27, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • Guest

      Hey look THE dolt has learnt how to use bold letters! yipee for the dolt. sadly the ability to use bold letters is only thing that stand out in its argument

      January 27, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • Chad

      1 @ReligionIs4Dolts “STUPID! Prove where Gilgamesh says it was “written as a story” and prove where Genesis says it is “written to record history”!

      =>If you want to believe that the author of Gilgamesh intended it to be a historical account of actual events, go right ahead. You will find no scholar that will agree with you.

      =>If you want to believe that the authors of the Bible did not intend for it to be a historical account of actual events, go right ahead. You will find no scholar that will agree with you.

      =>A book written as fiction often incorporates actual events. The Bible was written as non-fiction, Gilgamesh was written as fiction.

      It was a bit difficult to tease actual points out of the rest of your rant filled, poorly organized post, but this is my attempt to do so:
      2 @ReligionIs4Dolts “Fossils are really hard to make”
      =>we have millions of them, so obviously they get made

      3 @ReligionIs4Dolts “We don’t have fossils for every life form that ever lived”
      =>true, but we do have a complete enough fossil record that theories such as stasis in the fossil record are accepted. We also have enough of a fossil record that the plethora of fish and reptile fossils stands in sharp relief to the lack of any fossils recording interim species between fish and reptile.

      4 @ReligionIs4Dolts “The bible depicts the place where people go when they die as different in the Old Testament vs the New Testament”
      =>Before Jesus: dead people waited. After Jesus: dead people who have rejected Jesus are permanently estranged from God (“hell”).

      5 @ReligionIs4Dolts “The Bible got the order of creation wrong”
      => is correct, see the fossil record

      6 @ReligionIs4Dolts “How do you know that is the sequence of life on earth”
      =>because it is, see the fossil record

      7 @ReligionIs4Dolts “MICROORGANI-SMS aren’t mentioned in the biblical creation account”
      =>Neither are giraffes, so what?

      8 @ReligionIs4Dolts “the bible says the earth was created in SEVEN DAYS, not 4 BILLION YEARS. “
      =>6 days actually, on the seventh God rested (you aren’t too familiar with the bible ey?).. The word translated as “day” can also refer to epoch, which is what is being described in Genesis.

      If I missed anything, let me know

      January 27, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Chad

      @MarcTTF "Are you saying that the similarities between the stories in the bible and the epic of Gilgamesh are purely coincidental?"

      =>My stance is that the Gilgamesh is fiction which incorporates real events. The Bible contains real events. The overlap is the real events.

      January 27, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • Believer

      Religionis4dolts,
      U said that we cannot change change the story because it is conveniant for us. Evolution has changed the story multiple times. Today people believe that the earth is 5 billion years ago, however in the 80s and 70s it was only hundreds of millions of years ago. Im pretty sure that it only aged 20 or 30 years from that time frame, not billions. Also the very idea of dating the earth relies on assumptions about the rocks we test, that the rate of decay was constant and that we know how many atoms they started off in the first place. As evolutionists realize how much longer it would take they add to the afe of the earth.

      January 27, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • Believer

      Also u called chad a dolt for the monkees typing scenario, while that does not fit where Chad tried to it does fit somewhere else. The odds of that happening are smaller than the odds of this universe being exactly as it is, being able to support life, by pure chance. If one thing went different in this universe it would utterly collapse and there would be nothing.

      January 27, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • A believer

      @Religion4...-You said fossil evidence? yes that is proof that created species existed eons ago. Too bad for you that the evolution theory in which you believe in is by faith. You have misplaced your faith in the wrong things of life.

      January 27, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • Chad

      @Believer "Also u called chad a dolt for the monkeys typing scenario, while that does not fit where Chad tried to...."

      =>actually I would disagree with that.
      It's true that with those 5 groups the odds are 1 in 5 ! , which is 1 in 120.
      however
      what are the odds that those particular 5 groupings were selected? Why call out fish, birds, land animals and humans as groupings? Survey other creation myths and identify any that specify an order of creation that differentiates between animals and humans. When you think of all the possible things that could have been specified as having been created, and the possible orders of that, then you're talking a million monkeys banging out War and Peace odds.

      January 27, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      CHAD:
      “=>If you want to believe that the authors of the Bible did not intend for it to be a historical account of actual events, go right ahead. You will find no scholar that will agree with you.”
      Correction. “….will find no (BIBLICAL) scholar that will agree…” and that is because BIBLICAL “scholars” are dead set on insisting upon the alleged “truth” of the bible without evidence and they will not let any new science get in the way of debunking the mythology that they so dearly adhere to. Talk about your irrelevant CIRCULAR LOGIC! Furthermore, I have already cited a scholar as a reference, one Mr. Richard Dawkins, but I could also include Charles Darwin if you wish….oh wait, I think I already did because the Wiki quote above refers to him.

      “=>A book written as fiction often incorporates actual events. The Bible was written as non-fiction, Gilgamesh was written as fiction.”
      …which you keep saying WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE and WITHOUT ANY REFERENCES! The bible already loses authenticity because it was written down so much later than the Babylonian account. It doesn’t matter if they are talking about the same event. Even if they are talking about the same event, we know that there is NO WAY IN H&LL that any ignorant Middle Eastern goatherd could have KNOWN that the “whole world” was covered by water because the technology to have made such an a-ssessment did not exist. Furthermore, even if the technology had existed, we know that those ignorant people at that time STILL THOUGHT THE WORLD WAS FLAT! Therefore, they are NOT an authority on whether a flood indeed covered the “whole world”. It more likely just covered vast areas local to the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. DUH! And so what if PARTS of the bible can be considered “historical accounts”, such as genealogy of some of Israel’s forefathers? That doesn’t mean the rest of what was eventually culminated into the “bible” is of the same authenticity. If on the other hand you DO really think it is an accurate and complete account of the genealogy of mankind since the alleged “Adam and Eve” then you have TENS OF THOUSAND of years missing. The earth is not 6,000 years old, which IS a general time frame agreed upon by biblical scholars who take “Adam and Eve” literally. And the fossil record shows that modern man has been around for roughly 30,000 years, possibly even longer (look it up on Wikipedia).

      “7 @ReligionIs4Dolts “MICROORGANI-SMS aren’t mentioned in the biblical creation account”
      =>Neither are giraffes, so what? “
      Because it is your stance that the bible accurately depicts the alleged order in which ALL things were created. GIRAFFES fall easily within the ‘land animals’ category that you so adore, even though it is ridiculously GENERIC. Microorgani-sms do not fall within that category so you conveniently ignore them….like bats which are mammals that fly but which are not birds….like pterodactyls which fly but are not birds….like lichens and fungus which are not plants…..JUST KEEP IGNORING WHAT YOU CAN’T EXPLAIN with your limited and STATIC ‘record’ of ‘creation’ called the bible.

      “8 @ReligionIs4Dolts “the bible says the earth was created in SEVEN DAYS, not 4 BILLION YEARS. “
      =>6 days actually, on the seventh God rested (you aren’t too familiar with the bible ey?).. The word translated as “day” can also refer to epoch, which is what is being described in Genesis.”
      NO, DAY CANNOT mean anything other than a 24-hour period which occurred on a regular basis after this alleged “god” allegedly put lights in the vault of the sky to create DAY and NIGHT. YOU don’t know your verses that well if you don’t recognize that unalterable concept in the following:
      Genesis 1:14-19
      14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
      THIS IS FOLLOWED IN GENESIS BY THE ALLEGED ORDER OF PLANT AND ANIMAL CREATION THAT YOU ARE ARGUING FOR, but I won’t quote it to save space.

      You still conveniently ignore the points for which you have no answer! Don’t know what a factorial is do you? Or how it relates to probability?

      January 27, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer: ". Evolution has changed the story multiple times"

      Yes, but science, UNLIKE RELIGION, is constantly improving because we (or at least many of us, especially scientists) are constantly learning new things....things which were completely unknown to people at the time the stuperst-itious bible was written. Look up carbon dating on Wikipedia. It is quite informative. If you can't stand to read the whole article, just do a CTRL+F find for "error" and notice how minuscule the error tolerance is to the 4+ billion years this planet has been around.

      January 27, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • Guest

      hey dolt-u excited you have a new trick up ur sleeve today? whats up wilh the bold letters. easy on it ok, u sound like a maniac with all those bold letters

      January 27, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • Real Deal

      Believer: "If one thing went different in this universe it would utterly collapse and there would be nothing."

      Not necessarily. It might exist, but differently.

      You know, it might be even better - with little different skew, or more of this or less of that, we might have better bodies, larger brains, longer lifespans, more resistance to disease, fewer natural disasters, and on and on...

      January 27, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
    • Guest

      Chad, your posts along with some other believers are such a blessing. Great posts!

      Talking to atheists is no easy task especially with their constant need for ad hominem.

      January 27, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • Believer

      Religionis4dolts u do know that they do not use carbon dating for objects that are older than 5000 years right? even scientists know that that is unreliable

      January 27, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer: You didn't even read the article, did you?
      http://en.wikipedia.o r g/wiki/Carbon_dating

      January 27, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • Believer

      Yes I did, nows heres an artical for u
      http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

      January 27, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
    • Believer

      Also even your article said that the dating method said it relied on an assumption. Science is not about assumptions, it is about observing nature and reporting what it says. Now by observing the fossils I see Chad was right with the order they are in, and also by observing nature I cannot see any missing links. Just because one thing is buried under another does not mean that the higher up one came from the other. Also as you said the conditions had to have been perfect in order for things to be fossilized, quick burial. Which means that those layers would have had to have been layed down quickly in order to preserve the fossils in them. Also what do you do with the fossils that are in more than one strata? They are there

      January 27, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • Chad

      @Believer "Now by observing the fossils I see Chad was right with the order they are in [Genesis: Plants-Fish-Birds-Land Animals (including reptiles)-Man]"

      =>must confess I'm actually astonished that you didn't have even the most basic understanding of the progression of life forms on the earth prior to today. Does it ever make you stop to think about your rabid opinion expression that one of the most basic turned out to be incorrect?

      well, guess that's progress, one down, only seven more points to go in the list 🙂

      January 27, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • Believer

      HAHA Chad, actually I did see that before, shouldnt have put now:) anyways Im glad that ur here on this blog, and I cant wait to meet u in the end:)

      January 27, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • Chad

      @ReligionIs4Dolts “DAY CANNOT mean anything other than a 24-hour period which occurred on a regular basis after this alleged “god” allegedly put lights in the vault of the sky to create DAY and NIGHT. YOU don’t know your verses that well if you don’t recognize that unalterable concept in the following:
      Genesis 1:14-19 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the ..... the fourth day.

      =>there are some that point out that the word translated as "day" in genesis can't possibly mean one rotation of the earth on it's axis precisely due to that verse, namely since that the the sun/earth aren't created until the fourth day, what would the first three "days" be.

      Personally I don't find that compelling as I believe all of creation was created on the first "day".

      There are many many, many studies of the original Genesis Hebrew text that we now read in translated form. The important thing to do is endeavor to understand what the original author was trying to say, not overlay what we believe to be true on top of it.
      The exegetical support for long creation days is compelling.

      As for the rest of your rant, it was already dealt with in earlier posts, see above.

      January 27, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
    • Chad

      @believer: I have to sincerely apologize to you for the sarcastic tone of my post.. I actually thought it was ReligionIs4Dolts that suddenly discovered that the progression of life forms on earth went from fish-bird-land animal-human.

      which of course means that I owe ReligionIs4Dolts an apology for using sarcasm as well.. we can't just apologize to our friends can we...

      so, ReligionIs4Dolts, I apologize for my sarcastic tone.

      but, the information in my posts is accurate. 🙂

      January 27, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      The margin for error in carbon dating is negligible when compared to periods of time such as 6000 years and is in no way inaccurate enough to incorrectly date an object to say, 30,000 years ago. The earth is way older than the bible pretends it is.

      January 27, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Chad: "=>there are some that point out that the word translated as "day" in genesis can't possibly mean one rotation of the earth on it's axis precisely due to that verse, namely since that the the sun/earth aren't created until the fourth day, what would the first three "days" be.

      Personally I don't find that compelling as I believe all of creation was created on the first "day"."

      You can't just make it up as you go, which is what you people inevitably do all the time. Well, they must have meant....blah blah.... What does it matter how you personally interpret a "day"? Who are you to judge? Furthermore, since the plants, animals and all the other overly-general, arbitrary categories of living things weren't created until the day after the sun and moon (which means a 24-hour day from then on), you cannot assert that the fifth day was somehow "a billion years" or whatever you want to claim. It also doesn't help your argument in any way to say that the first three days could have been longer than 24 hours since the living things hadn't been made yet.

      January 27, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
    • Believer

      Did you read the article? All of carbon dating is based on assumptions, not hard data. Also just so you know, the main thing scientists are using now is Uranium-Lead dating which is even more assumptious.

      January 27, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer: Your article is by some bible thumper, which automatically makes it suspect. I will trust Wikipedia to be a more reliable, IMPARTIAL source of real information.

      January 27, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
    • Believer

      Everything that Carbon Dating, and Uranium dating depends on is that everything was constant and did not interfere throughout time. Basically what Im saying is that the halflives remain constant and that other elements did not get involved. Its funny that by saying the earth is billions of years old, you increase the odds that tampering occured at some point. We know the enviroment has changed drastically throughout time with the iceages, and there is no way of knowing how that affected the halflives of the isotopes.

      January 27, 2012 at 7:37 pm |
    • Believer

      Sorry Chad Im going to hurt you too on this one, but Wikepedia is so unreliable that Highschools do not allow it as a source for papers. In fact it is banned in a lot of them.

      January 27, 2012 at 7:39 pm |
    • Believer

      Also you failed to answer my question of fossils that go through more than one strata, and how in order for the fossils to be preserved the layers had to have been layed down quickly.

      January 27, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer: What is your point about strata? Are you suggesting that an organism could not have existed which did not evolve? There are examples of that which are found alive today...fish that have not evolved from their fossil ancestors. Some do, some don't, so what?

      And your point about the speed with which it is necessary for sediment to cover remains in order for them to fossilize is one of my points to Chad. Read my earlier comments regarding landslides, earthquakes, flooding.

      January 27, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • Believer

      You misunderstood my point of the strata, I mean 1 organism half in one layer and half in the other. Also did you hear about the "fossilised" T rex bone that had red blood cells in it? how do you explain that if it is millions of years old.

      January 27, 2012 at 8:04 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Believer: Not aware of any such case where a fossil has been found half in one and half in another strata. Care to provide an (impartial) reference? Regardless, how does that help your argument?

      What point are you making about red blood cells (and again, reference?)? Feces can be fossilized.

      January 27, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
    • Believer

      Here is the best I could do,
      http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/polystrate_fossils.htm
      The idea of finding an impartial source is prepostorous with something as controversial as this. The best way to understand is to study both sides of the argument unbiasely and see which side makes the most sense.
      Also the red blood cells were not fossilised, thats why i put it in quotations.

      January 27, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
    • Believer

      my point is this, evolution maintains that at a layer of strata was layed down quickly, and then a couple of millions of years later another strata was layed down quickly. If this was to happen then the part of the fossil that was not in the first strata would have decayed. Which means that the strata would have had to been layed on top of each other at the same time.

      January 27, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Polystrate fossils are rather curious, but I don't see how they help a pro-Creationist argument. Any number of explanations exist, one of which is that a given sediment layer did not in fact kill the tree, so it continued to grow upward until the next sedimentary layer came along.

      January 27, 2012 at 8:39 pm |
    • Believer

      No and I am not arguing for creationism, there is no way to proove it. My argument is that if you look at evolution unbiasely and you take in the fact that there are no missing links, no adequate explanation of how it all started, that carbon and uranium dating rely on assumptions (which wikipedia even said) the polystrata fossils, the unfossilized t rex bone heres the article http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v9i7n.htm look up other articles on the other side if you want, evolution has some pretty big holes to fill. It is not as foolproof as scientists would like you to believe.

      January 27, 2012 at 9:08 pm |
    • Believer

      Also in response to your argument for the strata, have you known a tree that lasted millions of years? No it would have died by the time evolutionists say the next strata would have appeared. Another argument I have heard is that it was thrown violently and became half buried in the previous strata. However if this is true then any of the fossils anywhere could have been buried in the wrong strata

      January 27, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      As far as polystrate fossils, there is always the possibility of erosion followed by re-stratification. Is any given strata required to be millions of years apart from its previous? I wouldn't think so if it could be formed by a volcano, earthquake, or flood for example.

      No doubt science in general has a lot of holes to fill, but at least it keeps asking questions and seeking new explanations for the underlying causes for things to be the way they are (instead of just accepting a supersti-tious religious account from a mere few thousand years ago when we know for a fact they had no such knowledge as we have today). Further unanswered questions about our environment include such topics as dark matter/dark energy which are undetectable by any direct means (as I understand) but which appear to consti-tute a vast majority of the Universe. I find such mysteries very interesting, and only advancements in science will possibly explain them to any degree. We can observe distant nebulae with their star-forming regions. We have already discovered planetoids that are undergoing the process of accretion from dust clouds (or were in the process when the light was emitted light years away). I think we can extrapolate that our planet was formed in much the same way. Our sun and our planets very likely formed out of the gas and dust emitted by some predecessor star which went supernova, and one day we expect our sun to go supernova as well (which will take us with it). We get the feeling from all these discoveries that our planet is not special as it is just one of billions in our own galaxy, which is just one galaxy out of countless billions of galaxies that dot the universe.

      January 27, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Now that I've said all that I thought I should put in a plug for HubbleSite.o r g, which is a great place to start if you're interested in seeing some cool images of space! Our tax dollars at work!

      January 27, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
    • Believer

      Like you I am 100% behind science when it is science. History and science are two seperate things and evolution is trying to combine them. U r right in the fact that a volcanoe could have quickly covered up the second layer right after the first one, but could this not have happened with all of the layers? Why just that one in that place? And if there are multiple ways that the fossils could have been layed through multiple layers why is the creationist one automatically wrong? You have said it yourself we must ask questions and not take out any possibilities. Maybe a world wide flood did appear, there is no evidence that it did not. Is it taking out just because the Bible said it thats how it happened? Also you fail to answer the origin of the universe, Einstein has discovered that it had to have had a beginning and that something had to have caused it. Also like you I am very interested in Dark Matter. I am excited to see what Science can bring us, I just believe that the theory of evolution still has too many holes in it for me to except that it is a fact. Dont get me wrong I believe in natural selection, there is just not enough evidence to say that it is indeed billions of years old and that we all came from single celled organisms. Once we find a missing link, or be 90% certain how the polystrata fossils appear I will immediatly jump on board. And you must remember that as of right now I am the one asking questions against the common belief, I too am trying to advance science progress by asking the questions I am asking.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • Believer

      I might take you up on that offer I love looking at the images, and can I say thank you for keeping up such an intelligent discussion. It seems to many people I argue against just say ur an idiot, u have no proof and never even bother to look at the other side. This goes both ways unfortunatly we all need to stop the name calling and actually discuss the issues.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Yes, well I was giving Chad a hard time, particularly because he's stubborn as a bulldog and he wouldn't so much a cite a source for his claims. 😉

      As far as a "Great Flood," we can see all around us that earthquakes are happening all the time, shifting tectonic plates, forcing parts of continents up or down (ever so slowly in terms of the human lifespan, but over geological time....). This observable fact coupled with the fact that we find so many examples of fossilized aquatic life forms on what is currently land above sea level, clearly points to the fact that much of the present day land mass was once underwater. But given how slowly the tectonic movement occurs, someone wanting to argue against Creationism can easily postulate that the earth is considerably older than 6000 years for there to be such an affluence of these types of fossils. For example, if you ever get a chance to go to Colorado Springs, CO, check out Cave of the Winds (http://caveofthewinds.com/more-to-explore/geological-history/geology-of-the-pikes-peak-region). And we know that these fossils did not form just a few thousand years ago, which is when this alleged flood is said to have occurred. Doesn't it make more sense that present-day land used to be sea floor merely as a result of geological forces which we can readily observe still happening?

      January 27, 2012 at 10:34 pm |
    • Believer

      Yes, but cant I say the same thing to you against evolution? Doesnt it make more sense that all variations of dog came from a dog with all the dog genes based on what we see today? Not from a single celled organism? Doesnt it make more sense that DNA is lost throughout time than gained? Also an interesting read on the flood account in the Bible has water spraying out of the earth, which would have started the tectonic plate movement. Also I read your article and could not find how we absolutly know that those fossils are that old. Youve read my opinion on the scientific dating methods. I do hope to see these one day they, because they sound very cool. And yes I believe that present day land used to be sea floor, and the flood is the cause of why it is not anymore.

      January 27, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
    • Land Ho!

      Believer,

      If Noah was floating around for a year or so after the flood, the first land to reappear would not have been the puny mountains of the Middle East.

      (and I can't believe I'm even stooping to comment on that ludicrous story - **sigh**)

      January 27, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
    • Believer

      Couple things land Ho, firstly the Bible does not say it was the first land, it was the first land in flight distance of the dove from where the ark was at at the time. If the ark was above the Middle East, then the mountain would have been the first piece of land they saw.

      January 27, 2012 at 11:20 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      It is a well accepted fact that dogs are descended from wolves. Many dog species only just developed within the past few hundred years. Now is that evolution? Also dogs can breed with wolves.

      January 27, 2012 at 11:21 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      The youngest fossil that can be found is expected to be no less than 10,000 years old....considerably older than any OT (or borrowed Babylonian) account of a flood.
      http://clearlyexplained.com/nature/earth/minerals/fossils.html

      January 27, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
    • Believer

      Religion is for dolts, sorry if I wasnt clear before I meant descended from wolves. I know that dogs can bree with wolves and that is where I am basing my argument. Here is my theory see if it makes sense, going into the ark went two animals of each species with a wide variety of genes. When the ark landed the animals repopulated and spread out. The animals that had the genes to survive in certain areas did and reproduced those genes until we got the variations of the species that we have today. This is what we see today, and also this makes more room on the ark because it wasnt two yorkies and two poodles that went on the ark, it was just two wolves who had the genes for all the dogs we have today.

      January 27, 2012 at 11:30 pm |
    • Believer

      It is widely believed that the youngest fossil must be around 10, 000 years old, as the fossilisation process cannot be completed in any shorter frame of time (except in the instances of freezing and preservation in tar pits).

      Thats what I got from your article, however diddnt you and I establish that fossils must be created quickly or else the organism would decay? And once again this article is based on carbon dating which as I have stated before uses assumptions

      January 27, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      Acknowledging assumptions does not so discredit carbon dating that something cannot be approximated to be 10,000 years old +/- 100 years....and what's 100 compared to 10,000? And I just use 100 as a general "midpoint" between the accepted ranges of error tolerance for carbon dating...."midpoint" being in quotes to mean it is not really in the middle...actually it's closer to the higher end of the error range.

      January 27, 2012 at 11:48 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      That has to be the most exaggerated version of the ark story I've ever heard. Are you supporting evolution now? Are you saying that all present day life forms evolved from a much smaller gene pool in only a few thousand years? HA! HA! Pull the other leg.

      January 27, 2012 at 11:52 pm |
    • Believer

      So scientists know that the sun's rays have always come at the same rate to affect the dating? They know that drastic weather changes such as ice ages do not change the amount of decay? They know how much carbon was there in the first place?

      January 27, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
    • Believer

      What I just said is not evolution, it is natural selection. Evolution says that everything started with single celled organisms with little DNA and gradually became more complex over billions of years and formed all the different species. What I said is we started off with all of the species, and each member of each species had a wide selection of DNA. These species then became more varied through natural selection but new species never were made.

      January 28, 2012 at 12:02 am |
  5. umreally

    If nonbelievers don't believe then why are you so passionate about what people are writing on the belief blog? Why are you even on the belief blog? maybe because you really do believe. 🙂

    January 26, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      No, we're sick of lunatics promulgating fairy tales and mass hysteria.

      January 26, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
  6. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things
    There is great joy in knowing God
    There is laughter in revelation
    And great joy in the morning
    Seek God while He can be found
    Rejoice in the companionship of God
    Prayer changes things

    January 26, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    • Nope

      We've been praying you would stop posting this crap, yet it continues, proving prayer doesn't work.

      Oh, and how about all those prayers for world peace that go unanswered.

      Oh and then there's the prayers of starving people around the world whose prayers go unanswered, dying by the millions.

      January 26, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
    • just sayin

      Nope-a -Dope

      January 26, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      "Seek God while He can be found"

      What? You mean "he" is going somewhere to hide? I'd say "he" already is hiding!

      January 26, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
  7. J-L

    I enjoyed reading this article. I had pondered the question of humor in the Bible before, but the writer of this article brought up some new and interesting idea, such as people might well have laughed when Jesus asked, "Who lights a lamp - and puts it under a bowl?"

    I found a humorous passage in the gospels once: (I'm paraphrasing and quoting from memory, so forgive me if I'm a little off.) Jesus and the apostles were in a boat, when the apostles suddenly realized that they forgot to bring food with them. They decide to tell Jesus about it, and Jesus responds, "Be on guard from the yeast of the Pharisees." Not sure what to make of this indirect response, the apostles look at one another, and one of them says, "He just said that because we forgot our lunches."

    I don't know if that passage was meant to be humorous when it was written, but I found it kind of funny.

    January 26, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
  8. Darwin

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA7bsK5_Z08&w=640&h=390]

    January 26, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
  9. Agent Rasputin

    So they crucified the comedian before he could get his first Armageddon joke out?
    Wow! That's one tough audience!

    January 26, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
  10. Agent Rasputin

    *** MANY THINGS WILL BE SENT TO TEST YOU ***
    These tests are called TESTS OF FAITH.
    ALL of these tests are REAL.
    If you pass then you PASS & if you fail then you FAIL.
    You need A SENSE OF HUMOUR to PASS EVERY TEST.
    If this hasn't bucked your spirits up then nothing will.

    January 26, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
  11. George

    Jesus was holy. He didn't joke around.

    January 26, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • Oh Yeah

      The Dalai Lama is also 'holy', but he also has a sense of humor. I guess humor is a uniquely human thing.

      January 26, 2012 at 6:47 pm |
  12. Agent Rasputin

    Fortress America's looking very very bleak indeed ...
    You dug yourselves into a rut.
    You'll just have to dig yourselves out again.
    It's not my fault that a sense of humour's GOOD FOR YOU.
    Even the shrinks will tell you that laughter's the best form of therapy.
    A sense of humour has pulled us through EVERY crisis in history.
    But first, you've got to learn to laugh at yourselves or be left crying.
    NOW DIG YOURSELVES OUT OF THAT RUT.

    January 26, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
  13. ReligionIs4Dolts

    There is no sense of humor (unless you're talking about SICK humor) in a phony religion that purports to have the "one and only correct answer" to some alleged "salvation," as if there were something to be "saved" from! If this "god" were so powerful, then "god" wouldn't have relied on MAN to deliver "his" message. Instead "he" would have written this seemingly all-important message in permanent ink in the sky (in every possible language, dispersed geostatically by region so that no one would need a translation). By doing so, this sky-message would have proven that the message was unequivocally written by "god" alone, without any tampering, misinterpretation, etc. by fallible and opportunistic man, and it would have been available for ALL TIME to EVERYONE ALL AT ONCE. This point alone proves all religion is man-made! But before some religious freak jumps on that tired, lame-@$$ "free will" pseudo-argument, if "god" had written his message in the sky, that would NOT be equivalent to "god" forcing man to follow "him," so the "free will" thing fails....so there's a pre-emptive S T F U for ya!

    January 26, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
  14. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer really changes things

    January 26, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
  15. Agent Rasputin

    So it's illegal to crack jokes ...
    We all knew that.
    Humour is the only way through the day.
    If you haven't got a sense of humour then you're already a broken man/woman.
    Try getting out of the right side of bed in the morning.
    Laugh at your pain.
    Wake up feeling refreshed.
    Did someone just mention Armageddon?

    January 26, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
  16. Reality

    Only for the "newbies":

    Bypassing the humor with a prayer:

    The Apostles' Creed 2011: (updated by yours truly based on the studies of NT historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

    Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
    and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
    human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven?????

    I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
    preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
    named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
    girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

    Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
    the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

    He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
    a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
    Jerusalem.

    Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
    many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
    ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
    Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
    grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
    and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
    called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

    Amen
    (References used are available upon request.)

    January 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • ......

      request you hit report abuse in all reality repeat bull sh it

      January 26, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • Feeding the Copy/Paste Troll

      "Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
      the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,"

      You do realize that the Romans would not have executed anyone for causing any kind of problems at a religious inst_itution unless it was to overthrow the Romans right? For what Jesus did, the Romans would not have cared.

      January 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
    • Oh Yeah

      Feeding the Copy/Paste Troll
      Oh no, any trouble during Passover, when Jerusalem was swelled with Jews celebrating their rebellion against the Egyptians, would have been seen as a potential trigger to uprising and the Romans wouldn't have hesitated putting dozens on the cross to set the example. This is actually about the most believable part of the whole story, Pilate having qualms over the execution of a single, unimportant Jew like Jesus, however, is just pure fantasy if you trust Josephus.

      January 26, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • Reality

      As per those who have thoroughly studied the last days of JC: one example-

      From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

      "That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

      “ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

      “While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

      “My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

      I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

      January 27, 2012 at 12:03 am |
  17. Rainer Braendlein

    @As.sinine talking points are fun

    The Son of God ever knew and knows everything like the Father. In that special situation, you mean, Jesus just restricted himself on being a man, because the Trintiy and thus the Son of God in Jesus did not want to tell the disciples the time of his second coming.

    January 26, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • Brad

      Christ, though essentially God, did constrain himself as Rainer says:

      Phillipians 1:6-7 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

      A word regarding "essentially": the Trinity is three in persons, one in essence.

      January 26, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @Brad: You said:, "A word regarding "essentially": the Trinity is three in persons, one in essence."

      And zero in rationality.

      January 26, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
  18. Rainer Braendlein

    @YeahRight

    You should read the book Isaiah of the Old Testament. At some passages it reads like a gospel, but it was written long before God visited the earth in the person of Jesus (what I mean is that Isaiah describes the life of Jesus that exactly that one could assume he had been a contemporary of Jesus, but he foresaw all, what he wrote!)

    There is a proof that Isaiah was written before Christ. Copies of Isaiah, which had been made before Christ's arrival, have been found in the caves of Qumran nearby the Dead Sea.

    January 26, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      (Isaiah 45:7, KJV) – "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, AND CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things."

      Isaiah also says that the Jewish god created EVIL. Gee, now why would anyone want to suck up to a god that created the very stumbling block that you are supposed to avoid? Evil SOB stacked the deck against man and then expects man not to fall. What a stupid religion!

      January 26, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • YeahRight

      That still doesn't prove your god exists or hell is real. Duh.

      January 26, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • Oh Yeah

      According to Isaiah, the maschiach must fulfill these *before* he dies.

      * The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26)

      * Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4)

      * The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17)

      * He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via King Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8-10)

      * The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with “fear of God” (Isaiah 11:2)

      * Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4)

      * Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9)

      * He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10)

      * All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)

      * Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8)

      * There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8)

      * He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7)

      * Nations will end up recognizing the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5)

      * All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19)

      * The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11)

      Did Jesus accomplish all of these things in his lifetime? Remember, there's no 'second coming' in Judaism, and Isaiah is one of it's books.

      January 26, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
  19. Rainer Braendlein

    The gospel of Jesus Christ:

    Jesus has borne our sins, when he died for us on the cross.

    That is the core message of the Holy Bible.

    Everybody believing that message and getting baptized into the Holy Trinity will get saved.

    January 26, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • YeaRight

      Dude, lighten up your God doesn't exist and you're spouting nonsense. Life is too short, so it's fun to laugh and tell jokes.

      January 26, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • Rainer Braendlein

      Although Jesus was not cracking jokes, he loved happiness and joy.

      His first miracle he wrought in Cana of Galilee at a wedding, when he made wine out of water, because there was a lack of wine.

      Gospel of St. John 2:

      And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • rick

      Sort of sad that people go through their lives believing they need to be "saved"

      January 26, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • jimtanker

      RB,

      If you read the apocryphal texts the first miracles that he performed were when he was a kid. One of which was when he killed another kid and brought him back to life. Just more fairy tales.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • Question

      @YeaRight

      You're right life is too short. But eternity is a long time.

      @rick

      It's also very sad that people going through life thinking they DON'T need to be saved and in the end they do.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
    • jimtanker

      The problem is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that you are right. Not even a little. If there was then more of us would take you more seriously. Your claims are just so flimsy.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • Rainer Braendlein

      @jimtanker

      I suppose Jesus did not work miracles during his childhood.

      They great characteristic of Jesus was that he was perfect God and perfect man at the same time. In Jesus the divine nature and the human nature were perfectly united, but not mixed.

      In order to make sure Jesus' full human nature, there must have be a time in his life without any miracle. Assumed he had ever worked miracles, the people had never regarded him as ordinary man and it had been impossible for him to live the life of an ordinary Jew.

      It is, however, striking that in the age of 12 years he was yet able to teach the educated Scribes and Pharisees of Israel.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "You're right life is too short. But eternity is a long time."

      But heaven and your God doesn't exist, so no worries.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • YeahRight

      "They great characteristic of Jesus was that he was perfect God and perfect man at the same time."

      You have no proof of that.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • As.sinine talking points are fun

      You'd think that a perfect god would know when the world will end. But daddy won't let him in on that secret. I wouldn't think that a perfect monotheistic god would talk to and keep secrets from himself.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • Reality

      Professor JD Crossan notes in his book, Who is Jesus)

      "Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

      January 26, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • ReligionIs4Dolts

      If "god almighty" is really so petty as to require people to incant the correct name (whether it's Jesus, Mohammed, Bodhisattva, etc.), eat the "right foods", dress the "right way", treat women like dirt, etc., then "god" has a lot of growing up to do. Anyone that believes in an organized religion has really missed the point. Look around and notice all the religions (or spirituality or beliefs, etc) that have been formed by virtually every tribe on the planet (some completely independently, others having been influenced by their neighbors). Either every single one of them holds a key to the real deal, or every single one of them is absolutely incorrect. There is NO WAY that a single belief system is correct, particularly if said religion was made up tens of thousands of years after modern man arrived on the earth, and the assumption is that this religion is the only way man can be "saved". How irresponsible is that for an all-knowing, all-powerful "god" to give everyone the "only correct answer" after countless generations have already perished without a chance. Let alone the fact that said religion was revealed at a time when there was no mass communication (and therefore further countless generations must also perish without a chance). What? Did "god" still think the earth was flat until man figured out that it wasn't? STUPID RELIGION!

      January 26, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
  20. Rainer Braendlein

    Nobody cracks jokes on a sinking ship, which Israel was at Jesus' time.

    I think Jesus had no reason at all to be jokey.

    First, Jesus foresaw the bad future of Israel and Jerusalem:

    Mark 13: 1: And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

    Indeed, about 40 years after Jesus' Ascension in 70 after Christ the Temple was destroyed by the Romans and very many Jews perished. Furthermore many Jews became slaves of the Romans and were scattered all over the world. The Jewish nation ceased for 1800 years.

    Secondly, Jesus came to comfort and to cure afflicted people. He wanted to help people, which suffered from the consciousness of their sinfulness. Should the Redeemer of such people be jokey? Would you expect a physician, who cures an invalid, to be jokey? A ill person doens't need jokes, but cure. Exactly this was delivered by Jesus.

    Thirdly, Jesus was aware of his own fate. He knew that he would be crucified in Jerusalem. Should someone, who expects a terrible death, be jokey?

    January 26, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • rick

      What better place to crack jokes then a sinking ship?

      January 26, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • iamdeadlyserious

      I'm going to go with the man who has an education and a well supported position as well as a strong position in his church over random guy on the internet.

      January 26, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • Oh Yeah

      From Wiki, but this is actually an accurate summary:

      Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [35]) view as follows:
      Mark: c. 68–73,[36] c. 65–70[37]
      Matthew: c. 70–100.[36] c. 80–85.[37]
      Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[36] c. 80–85[37]
      John: c. 90–100,[37] c. 90–110,[38] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

      You see, it's entirely possible that the gospels were written after the destruction of the temple.

      January 26, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • Chad

      I would say there is a difference between having a sense of humor and being "jokey". I don't see Jesus being humorless at all.

      Jesus wept seeing his friends so sad at the funeral of Lazarus. He had very close friends throughout. He never comes across as dour or humorless.

      January 26, 2012 at 9:55 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.