There has to be much more to comedy, jokes, humour, than there being some kind of slight surprise. At least the kind of funny I laugh at. Unless I'm in a hysterical mood, I guess, or extremely nervous, or high. Apostle Paul seems to try a bit of wit and humour, I think, and the blind man mocking the pharisees was intentionally quite funny. The story of possessed pigs jumping off a cliff is so absurd the comedy kind of dispels the horror of it, but that's easy for us to say from a distance - if I was an eye witness I'm not sure I'd have laughed. I know you want people to think the bible might be fun to read, and it is surprising, but not ridiculous, unless you're a schoolboy atheist. So the surprise at John naming John the Baptist when you might expect it to be Jesus is interesting, sure, but it's not really comedy. The talking ass in the Old Testament now, that is ridiculous, only because it's a made up story. Isn't it?
Why is that arrogant? I'm sorry if I came across arrogant, I didn't mean all atheism is "schoolboy", but there a certain strand of atheism that comes across as childishly arrogant and I don't for one second think that is you at all by the way. There may be lots of made up (and even amusing) stories in the bible, but that being so wouldn't make the bible ridiculous. On the other hand if one really is the kind of atheist who dismisses it out of hand, like say a schoolboy who doesn't understand the genre of religious literature, then one will find most of it easy to ridicule. As for the New Testament, I assume you mean the gospels, and although they don't all tie together 100% in detail, they are at least intended as essentially factual, by different writers, as much as say modern newspaper reports are, and given the kind of spin the writers wanted to convey certain religious or spiritual truths. I don't personally believe they warrant uncritical factual assent merely by being in the bible by the way, but I do think the writers and the early churches believed they represented the gamut of Christian faith and practice, which is I suppose why they were called Christians. There is a great deal of wit in Paul's epistles, and the imagery in Revelation is pretty gobsmacking if you're in the mood, while much of the disciples confusion does in hindsight seem funny in a relatable ironic kind of way, to me. But as a whole, the canon of Christian Scripture is not ridiculous, given how it was put together, the historical significance, the breadth and depth of its themes and concerns, the variety of literary techniques, and the influence both good and bad that it has had over the last two millennia. To me as a whole and in detail it's priceless and irreplaceable and inspiring - as close to God speaking as literature can be.
I appreciate your response and will give a detailed shortly. So just because they appear to have been written by different people that means they are true?
No I don't say that. Many of the plot points and sayings are mutually consistent of course, and there are some apparent variations as you'd expect. It is the meanings given to the events that count with me. The gospels help to support the teachings of Paul and other Apostles, imho, which are teachings to followers who already believed that the man Jesus was of God and that his (God's) spirit transformed them. One thing I have noticed is the sheer personal naturalism of all these writings; they read as utterly authentic, warts and all, very relatable. Depending on the reader's mood and prior beliefs, some of it can, as James suggests seem pretty amusing. Inasmuch as I ridicule anything, it is some of the ways Sunday Schools and Churches have dumbed it down and got themselves lost in rabbit holes of misinterpretation, but as long as people keep talking about it all's good!
There has to be much more to comedy, jokes, humour, than there being some kind of slight surprise. At least the kind of funny I laugh at. Unless I'm in a hysterical mood, I guess, or extremely nervous, or high. Apostle Paul seems to try a bit of wit and humour, I think, and the blind man mocking the pharisees was intentionally quite funny. The story of possessed pigs jumping off a cliff is so absurd the comedy kind of dispels the horror of it, but that's easy for us to say from a distance - if I was an eye witness I'm not sure I'd have laughed. I know you want people to think the bible might be fun to read, and it is surprising, but not ridiculous, unless you're a schoolboy atheist. So the surprise at John naming John the Baptist when you might expect it to be Jesus is interesting, sure, but it's not really comedy. The talking ass in the Old Testament now, that is ridiculous, only because it's a made up story. Isn't it?
Hi Andy
So saying the bible is ridiculous is schoolboy atheism. A bit arrogant perhaps. So why isn't the new testament not a made up story
Why is that arrogant? I'm sorry if I came across arrogant, I didn't mean all atheism is "schoolboy", but there a certain strand of atheism that comes across as childishly arrogant and I don't for one second think that is you at all by the way. There may be lots of made up (and even amusing) stories in the bible, but that being so wouldn't make the bible ridiculous. On the other hand if one really is the kind of atheist who dismisses it out of hand, like say a schoolboy who doesn't understand the genre of religious literature, then one will find most of it easy to ridicule. As for the New Testament, I assume you mean the gospels, and although they don't all tie together 100% in detail, they are at least intended as essentially factual, by different writers, as much as say modern newspaper reports are, and given the kind of spin the writers wanted to convey certain religious or spiritual truths. I don't personally believe they warrant uncritical factual assent merely by being in the bible by the way, but I do think the writers and the early churches believed they represented the gamut of Christian faith and practice, which is I suppose why they were called Christians. There is a great deal of wit in Paul's epistles, and the imagery in Revelation is pretty gobsmacking if you're in the mood, while much of the disciples confusion does in hindsight seem funny in a relatable ironic kind of way, to me. But as a whole, the canon of Christian Scripture is not ridiculous, given how it was put together, the historical significance, the breadth and depth of its themes and concerns, the variety of literary techniques, and the influence both good and bad that it has had over the last two millennia. To me as a whole and in detail it's priceless and irreplaceable and inspiring - as close to God speaking as literature can be.
I appreciate your response and will give a detailed shortly. So just because they appear to have been written by different people that means they are true?
No I don't say that. Many of the plot points and sayings are mutually consistent of course, and there are some apparent variations as you'd expect. It is the meanings given to the events that count with me. The gospels help to support the teachings of Paul and other Apostles, imho, which are teachings to followers who already believed that the man Jesus was of God and that his (God's) spirit transformed them. One thing I have noticed is the sheer personal naturalism of all these writings; they read as utterly authentic, warts and all, very relatable. Depending on the reader's mood and prior beliefs, some of it can, as James suggests seem pretty amusing. Inasmuch as I ridicule anything, it is some of the ways Sunday Schools and Churches have dumbed it down and got themselves lost in rabbit holes of misinterpretation, but as long as people keep talking about it all's good!