Your absolutely correct. The 'argument from silence' wasn't really my main issue. My main issue was 4 statements that I knew conclusively to be false. Three were proven such, Ebonmuse hasn't responded to the last, which is a charge that "Jesus condemns laughter."

I also offer that Ebonmuse contradicts himself by expecting God / Jesus to laugh in scripture. When discussing the problem of evil, the classic atheist position is that God should be faulted for not stepping in as the world's evil proceeds. So how does expecting God to lighten up and laugh fit in with this?

Oh, you probably figured as much, but ICIMSDB is actually me, 'cl'. Ebonmuse referred to me indirectly as all of those things, and I did that only to make mockery of what I perceived as a useless and insulting ad hominem. I wanted to make it my new, permanent moniker, but after a while, it would just get annoying.

But I hope that you realize that that argument can be turned against you. For instance, Jesus Christ may have claimed to his disciples that he is only pretending to be the Messiah and the Son of God in order to get people to listen to him, and that it is very important that they help him maintain that pretense.

That's not in the Bible, of course, but how can we be sure that he never said that? If the Bible cannot rule out Jesus Christ having a sense of humor, then it cannot rule out Jesus Christ practicing a pious fraud.

I agree without reservation that you've held perfectly well to your criticisms against Jesus condemning laughter and laughter never being positive within the Bible.

Well thank you, Brad. It's good to see at least one intelligent, reason-enshrining atheist grant an ignorant, credulous, irrational, mockworthy, shameworthy demon-believer a little credit when their arguments are actually cogent.

However, what you're telling us here is that you actually have a defense against Ebonmuse's original thesis! Personally, I would find that to be a more relevant and important point to make here than your other criticisms, and am surprised you haven't covered it so much.

Here's what I say to this: As you noted before, due to the title of the OP, I did originally get sucked into focusing on the fact that Ebonmuse's was an argument from silence. Then false statements 1-3 popped up, along with 4 (which I allege is also false), and I got consumed with those. Besides, I'm mainly interested in being sure no factual misinformation is going on in these sorts of debates, because human beings reason not only from experience but also perception; thus, the closer our perceptions align with actuality, the purer is our sight of the available evidence. Allowing and encouraging the existence of misinformation and exaggerations obscures actuality. Actuality belongs to all of us, and people need clear and unobstructed access to actuality to engage in a proper chain of reason. Most atheists are set in their ways as are most believers, but those still swimming in the sea of affirmation deserve as little mud in their water as possible. As creationists shouldn't muddy their water with pedestrian arguments from entropy, atheists shouldn't muddy their water with exaggerated and biased interpretations of scripture.

Either way, I'm not so sure the contention you cite is a defense against Ebonmuse's thesis. IMO, Ebonmuse's thesis was that God and Jesus are not depicted as laughing joyously in scripture. This is true, but it was where Ebonmuse and a few of the commenters went with this that I took issue with.

I'm guessing it might someway include your contention that there were less people in olden times and less for people to laugh about. I'd be interested in hearing your case, one way or another.

No; that bit about laughter was just another random variable that occurred to me as the thread progressed. To assume that God should laugh is to assume that it is appropriate for God to do so. Such an assumption is bold sans omniscience. As far as hearing my case as why an all-loving, all-concerned type of God might not be expected to laugh much in scripture, it's longer of an argument than I want to tack onto this thread, but let's just say it parallels the reasoning behind not doing certain things in times of war out of respect for those who are perishing. It's ironic that as the war continues, our sports and other pop culture accoutrements proceed uninterrupted while thousands are dying and suffering the world over. Laughter is justified when appropriate. As with those who wear black to funerals, some feel it appropriate to adopt a somber attitude when fellow human beings are caught in the whirlwinds of tragedy and horror. How can God laugh while bigots and maniacs continue to kill and oppress in God's name? How can God laugh throughout slavery when entire lineages were afraid to love one another because their 'master' could come and with one forced rape put it all to ruins? How can God laugh while blood poured in the Roman coliseums, at Carthage and Jewish internment camps? If those persuaded by the problem of evil fault God for not stepping in and directly stopping these things, surely they must fault God for sitting back and laughing while all this evil carries on as well, right?

So we see that anyone who argues that an all-loving, all-concerned type God is obligated to prevent all evil (such as Ebonmuse) must certainly also argue that an all-loving, all-concerned type God should not be laughing so long as evil persists. If allowing evil to exist is wrong, surely laughing while it exists would be equally wrong. Interestingly, Ebonmuse is not arguing this, but the converse - that God should be laughing while evil has its moment. To flip his question - I find this disturbing, don't you?

And remember, just because God is not recorded as laughing in scripture doesn't mean God hasn't, doesn't, or won't again laugh. After all, there's a time for everything, a time for every season. When everyone has made their decisions and the tallies are in, things might be different. Maybe not.

so what is the fuss about?

I asked Ebonmuse to talk about this back in my first comment, and he has talked about it within two subsequent comments. (I grant your statement about sechowq, it is mainly used for joy/merriment.)

laughter in those other verses were for those who were being definant or who were mocking God or his prophets, or who were laughing to make fun of.

I suppose the Israelites might have thought they were fighting fire with fire then? How godly. Regardless, I think they also scorned people because of the perception of people not fitting in or living up to religious standards of righteousness that they ascribed to God. We all know what happened with pregnant women and the lepers.

I don't ascribe negativity or morbidity to the fact that God is not depicted as laughing joyously in scripture. In fact, I'd be glad to explain precisely my opinion why we might not expect God to laugh joyously as well, especially if we are positing the all-loving, all-concerned type of God.

I agree without reservation that you've held perfectly well to your criticisms against Jesus condemning laughter and laughter never being positive within the Bible. However, what you're telling us here is that you actually have a defense against Ebonmuse's original thesis! Personally, I would find that to be a more relevant and important point to make here than your other criticisms, and am surprised you haven't covered it so much. I'm guessing it might someway include your contention that there were less people in olden times and less for people to laugh about. I'd be interested in hearing your case, one way or another.

So at what point is it okay to denigrate another human being because they believe in a different reality than you? I say that's their freedom of religion and speech which is as important as yours and what this country stands for, and so long as they're not interjecting such into politics or education, then what right have you to assume the moral high ground, especially since each walks a different path and none of us can prove anything?

Of course Collins has such freedoms - just not from reactionary criticism and mockery. When he's the president of the American Association of Christian Counselors and a clinical psychologist, as a demon-believer he has it in for himself. To make an analogous example: would you like a Christian Scientist to be the president of the American Public Health Association? I wouldn't - and it's not just because of that person's beliefs, but the implications of them. I don't think Ebonmuse would denigrate Collins so much about his superstitions if he thought them actually harmless to others, and if he didn't hold such a high position. I think that's what Ebonmuse implied last comment.

(I realize APHA is public and AACC is Christian, but my point stands.)

This debate has gone on far longer than I ever anticipated, and I don't want to drag it out still further, but I have some final thoughts.

I agree. I really don't either, but I am glad at least you came back to discuss your positions.

As far as where we stand in this whole mess, I've conceded and clarified quite a bit here, and you seem to think I disagree with you more than I actually do. If you haven't, carefully read 7) in my comment November 12, 2008, 2:26 pm. Your apparently confusing my distaste for a few of your conclusions and also some from the thread as distaste for your main thesis or overall point, when that's not necessarily the case.

I agree with the first paragraph in your last comment entirely, and I've never really had much of a problem with the main thesis or overall point of the OP. What you're saying is true; God is depicted as laughing vindictively at certain points in the OT and Jesus is not directly depicted as laughing in the NT. But I'm arguing that you drew a few overreaching conclusions, took things just a bit too far, and provided an estimation of scripture and laughter that was imbalanced. That was the point of my poop parody, as well as to show what I felt as the absurdity of making such an argument from silence. I argue that a few commenters took things too far as well. Consider the following:

1) "[T]here are two... positive uses of laughter in the Bible..." (Wedge) False statement, yes or no?

2) (The Bible) "only depicts laughter in a cruel way..." (Ebonmuse, paren. mine) False statement, yes or no?

3) "There are 38 other verses using some variation of laughter (KJV). All negative." (Wedge) False statement, yes or no?

4) "Not only does Jesus never laugh, it seems, but he condemns those who do..." (Ebonmuse)

I didn't classify 4) automatically as false out of respect, because you still seem to defend your interpretation of Luke 6:21-25 as Jesus condemning laughter across the board, and I still disagree. If your interpretation is correct, then Jesus is also assigning great value to laughter in the preceding verse 21: "Blessed are those who mourn now, for ye shall laugh." Why would Jesus describe them as blessed except that they were going to laugh, ie, experience a positive or pleasant thing? And how do you account for the double occurence of "for that is how their fathers treated the prophets before them," once after each selection in the passage? Are there other verses that corroborate your claim here?

Even with our differences in how we interpret Luke 6:21-25 aside, the other three statements are all undeniably false statements that were made in this thread. Now, I realize you say these minutia don't compromise your overall thesis, and I agree - but my comments did add a healthy and realistic check to what was otherwise a conversation with some legitimate imbalance and misinformation going on.

You also said,

So when I cite modern Christian bloggers and writers who feel that way, they're just the ramblings of someone on the internet (and you aren't, cl?), and they can be ignored because they have no authority on the matter. But when I cite Christian councils and church fathers, why, he just waves that away as well, because who cares what those guys think?

I suppose it's okay if you want to refer to me as rambling. It's just that, in your comment November 12, 2008, 9:49 am you offered arguments from authority based on mostly irrelevant non-sequiturs in place of an authentic argument of your own. I don't mean to give the impression that I'm above other thinkers or that other thinkers' pertinent opinions aren't of valid concern in any given argument. Key word is pertinent, however, and of the people you cite, none of them appear to be arguing that Jesus condemns laughter. None of them seem to be making the claim that the Bible only depicts laughter in a cruel way. None of them were claiming there were only two 'positive references' to laughter in the Bible. None of them were claiming that every other verse besides Psalms 126:2 and Luke 6:21 and were negative. One or two of your last four sources offered does support the main point of the OP - they do not support any of the false claims I've taken issue with and that's why I've dismissed them - I don't disagree that the Bible has notably serious overtones, which a few of your sources do recognize - I disagree that the Bible has only serious overtones, or that the Bible condemns mirth, joy, or laughter.

And you are misunderstanding at least one of your sources which you claim supports your point - the first source in your comment November 12, 2008, 9:49 am is a non-sequitur entirely - "Holy Laughter" belongs in the discussion about Benny Hinn type nonsense, as Polly noted in comment November 12, 2008, 2:35 pm. Your fourth source is also non-sequitur, at least the statement you offer. It is entirely in the context of mourning and sin, and keeping an outflow of sorrow. It is an argument by some faithful writer admonishing believers not to be lukewarm in their attitude towards repentance, and notice that to advocate solace or sorrow is not to debase or devalue laughter. So sources 1 and 4 are irrelevant to both the OP and the claims I take issue with, while sources 2 and 3 directly support the overall thesis of the OP but are also irrelevant to the claims I take issue with. So, sources 1-4 do not address my arguments, and that's why I dismissed them. No offense to the writers was intended and no air of superiority was assumed.

As for this,

cl is obviously set in his ways about this, and I don't really expect to change his mind. But the rest of us can observe that my argument about the Bible's views on laughter, far from being some radical atheist invention, is something that a large number of Christians throughout history have also noticed and believed. (Of course, unlike me, they consider it a positive rather than a negative.) That goes to show that this message is present in the Bible, regardless of whether you choose to admit it or not.

I've not implied your argument is some radical atheist invention. Where I think you might be gratuitous is in saying that the Bible has a 'view' on laughter at all. For me the logic does not flow when we offer the deduction that the Bible devalues laughter because God is depicted as laughing vindictively in the OT and Jesus is not depicted as not laughing at all in the NT. I think you run too far with your argument, while overlooking easy targets like Sarah and Ecclesiastes that should have been in a balanced discussion on scripture and laughter from the outset. That would have shown that you took a balanced and unbiased look at the whole topic and would have made a much stronger case to a reasonable believer.

That you view scripture's dealings with laughter as 'negative' is your opinion and not for me to challenge, but like you anticipated, I don't ascribe negativity or morbidity to the fact that God is not depicted as laughing joyously in scripture. In fact, I'd be glad to explain precisely my opinion why we might not expect God to laugh joyously as well, especially if we are positing the all-loving, all-concerned type of God.

At any rate, my problem was never your contention that God laughs vindictively in the Old Testament, and although I think the literal assertion that Jesus never laughed is baseless, my problem was never even your contention that Jesus is not depicted as laughing in the New Testament. I can live with those things.

My problem was the 3 or 4 gratuitous but false statements that all spawned from the OP, and the fact that no one got called on them.

Oh,

My tone is derogatory, and I do think that anyone who still believes in demons is ignorant and credulous and deserves to be mocked... It's a cruel, childish and primitive superstition that any rational person should be ashamed of himself for holding.

Interesting response. So at what point is it okay to denigrate another human being because they believe in a different reality than you? I say that's their freedom of religion and speech which is as important as yours and what this country stands for, and so long as they're not interjecting such into politics or education, then what right have you to assume the moral high ground, especially since each walks a different path and none of us can prove anything? If one believes in angels, are they equally "ignorant, credulous and deserving to be mocked?" If someone who fell from a cliff sincerely believes an angel intervened and saved them, is that person complicit in a "cruel, childish and primitive superstition" and should they be "ashamed of themselves" for thinking such? Do you ascribe such harsh judgment to anyone who believes in any non-material beings?

Either way, thanks for the banter and no hard feelings.

Since cl is insistent about it, I'm happy to grant, for the sake of argument, his assertion that Sarah laughed joyfully when she found out she was pregnant. I also have no grudge against Ecclesiastes, which is far and away my favorite book of the Bible; if any biblical book had a positive mention of laughter, I'd expect it to be that one. Given this, I'd also acknowledge that the Bible contains a scattered few depictions of laughter that are not cruel or mocking. I can concede these things without a qualm because they really don't affect my argument at all. Getting back to the substance of my original post, you'll recall that it was an argument about how the Bible depicts God, and that he never displays mirth or laughter - neither in the Old Testament, nor in the New. Whenever God laughs, according to the Bible, it's only ever in mockery of the suffering and doom of those who disbelieved him. This happens more than once.

As I said, if Jesus was the epitome of how humans were meant to live, if his life was the template for godly behavior, then you would expect that he would laugh. That's one of the fundamental acts by which humans respond to the world and communicate with each other, and one of the simplest and most basic pleasures of life. We don't see it here. In the Bible, God's interaction with humans is very one-dimensional, very black and white; there's approval and righteousness, there's fury and wrath, and there's hardly anything in between. The Bible wallows in this judgmental and vindictive attitude, and as a result, there are whole areas of human experience, most notably laughter, that it misses out on. I don't find that example something that should be praised or emulated. Rather than a healthy and balanced view of humanity, this is one of many areas where the Bible depicts the rigid and joyless view of the fundamentalist.

On the topic, here's a highly relevant verse from the Epistle of James I somehow overlooked before:

Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. (4:8-9)

Notice that weeping and mourning are judged to be how we "draw nigh" to God.

Please note that if Ebonmuse's interpretation of Luke 6:17-26 is correct, then Jesus is also condemning wealth (v.24), being well-fed (v.25), and the situation of receiving compliments (v.26).

Yes, he is. It surprises me that you think this is a strange or radical interpretation. This "the last shall be first" theme is very much the message of the Beatitudes: that those who enjoyed the fruits and the esteem of this world will pay for it in the next, while God will reward the poor, the miserable, and the downtrodden (cf. the story of Lazarus and the rich man, a few chapters later in Luke). Do you really think that this is something only atheists have asserted or believed?

Also, I want to point out the inconsistency of this...

Anyone on the internet can post a bunch of ramblings and call them "Christian," so expecting me to accept this argument from authority is just absurd.

...And John Chrysostom is supposed to convince me how?

So when I cite modern Christian bloggers and writers who feel that way, they're just the ramblings of someone on the internet (and you aren't, cl?), and they can be ignored because they have no authority on the matter. But when I cite Christian councils and church fathers, why, he just waves that away as well, because who cares what those guys think?

cl is obviously set in his ways about this, and I don't really expect to change his mind. But the rest of us can observe that my argument about the Bible's views on laughter, far from being some radical atheist invention, is something that a large number of Christians throughout history have also noticed and believed. (Of course, unlike me, they consider it a positive rather than a negative.) That goes to show that this message is present in the Bible, regardless of whether you choose to admit it or not.

Finally:

I'm concerned with the way Ebonmuse tars Gary Collins with the religious epithet of "demon-believer." Now I don't know who Gary Collins is, nor have I ever heard of the man...

Gary Collins is a clinical psychologist and president of the 15,000-member American Association of Christian Counselors. He was handpicked by apologist Lee Strobel for his book The Case for Christ. He also, as he freely admits in that book, believes that demons exist and that they are the cause of mental illness in at least some instances.

...nor do I expect any atheist to respect his beliefs, but the tone is undisguisably derogative and the usage suggests that anyone who would believe demons could exist is some sort of fundamentalist wackaloon.

You have it exactly right here, cl. My tone is derogatory, and I do think that anyone who still believes in demons is ignorant and credulous and deserves to be mocked. Some religious beliefs I can respect, even if I don't agree with them; this is not one of those beliefs. It's a cruel, childish and primitive superstition that any rational person should be ashamed of himself for holding.

...you claim you did not say that people rarely laughed in biblical times compared, yet your assertion that instances of laughter decrease further back in time directly implies it.

My assertion does not "directly imply" people "rarely laughed in biblical times." My assertion does imply that there were less people, and also less for people to laugh about - no YouTube, no comedy central, no feature films and the playwrights didn't have an inkling of the exposure a modern screenwriter gets. See the difference?

As for this,

I don't accept your assertion that life was too hard back then for people to be easily amused...

I've not implied life was "too hard" and that people back then weren't easily amused. Again, see above.

...there's plenty of reference to laughter elsewhere in the ancient world. Plato's Republic makes much use of it, for example, and even contains cautions against excess of laughter - for even the possibility of excessive laughter to arise, it can't have been in as short supply as all that. Ancient Greek culture was certainly well acquainted with humour, and they weren't as far away from the Holy Land as all that.

References of laughter that might or might not exist in the creative works of antiquity seems pretty pointless to me. Besides all of this is tangential. Nothing in your statement supports Ebonmuse's claims that the Bible "depicts laughter only as a cruel act" and that "Jesus condemns laughter" in Luke 6:21-25. Those are what I'm interested in bantering about.

I don't accept your assertion that life was too hard back then for people to be easily amused - if they had sufficient quality of life to waste time and effort following messiahs around or writing gospels, they surely would have had time for a little levity. Besides, there's plenty of reference to laughter elsewhere in the ancient world. Plato's Republic makes much use of it, for example, and even contains cautions against excess of laughter - for even the possibility of excessive laughter to arise, it can't have been in as short supply as all that. Ancient Greek culture was certainly well acquainted with humour, and they weren't as far away from the Holy Land as all that.

Your first comment completely ignores the fact that my challenges to Ebonmuse's arguments do not hinge on whether Jesus actually laughed or not. At any rate, I'll still take a stab at this:

...the authors of the gospels would have no conceivable reason to record instances of Jesus pooping, running or jumping.

Whether they would have considerable reason or not is at once subjective, presumptive and irrelevant. Further note that by your logic as stated in your original comment, one would be justified in assuming Jesus never pooped, stretched, or jumped, simply because these things were not "explicitly described:"

...when you're writing an account of someone's actions, you don't exhaustively list all the things they don't do and so, when reading any such account, you assume actions not explicitly described did not occur.

That was your original argument, and no offense but it's extremely unconvincing - and again, says nothing of the challenges I've posed to Ebonmuse's claims.

As for your second comment, I like this:

Oh, and to turn your own argument against you, cl - how do you know people rarely laughed in biblical times, compared to today? Because there are no accounts of them in historical texts? Laughter is, as you have implied, a non-volitional action, which means it is most likely an evolved reflex, and in order to be universally present in the human species, as it is today, it must have arisen a hell of a lot more than two millennia ago.

You sure flipped one on me, alright. A strawman, that is - I never once said "people rarely laughed in biblical times compared to today." Who said anything about laughter arising two millenia ago? You're extrapolating baselessly here.

I did imply that per population and cultural differences, coupled with the complete lack of television, internet, and mass-media culture, we have less total potential for laughter in general the further back we look in man's historical and social evolution, and I said we should all factor this into our estimations of the matter.