Да ли је Бог духовит?

[Ненад Р.]

Како знамо да се никада није смејао?

Ја нигде то нисам прочитао , нити чуо од свештеника , а ни видео на филму . То не мора да буде тачно , али доносим закључке на основу података који су ми доступни , а ту нигде нема података да се он смејао.

[Milan Nikolic]

@@Ненад.,

 

Пишеш ћирилицом па претпостављам да си србедна као ја. Али никако ми не пишемо Христ, него Христос. Буди стварно србенда.

[Снежана]

Није грех , али ако у тим шалама споменемо Бога или било кога Свеца  јесте грех , ту треба да стоје јасне границе .

A поставиће их ко?

[Снежана]

@,

 

Ако није било на интернету, или у "Дневнику", к`о да се није ни десило

[Ненад Р.]

A поставиће их ко?

Богу треба само да волимо и да се њему молимо и само то . То треба ваљда да буде јасно сваком правом вернику и свако треба да постави ту границу.

[Снежана]

@@Ненад.,

Ко је прави верник?

[.............]

Šta, ako ne piše u Svetom Pismu da se smejao, onda se kategorički nije smejao?

Kad moramo da idemo u banalnosti, nije pisalo u Svetom Pismu ni da je Hristos išao u toalet za svoje 33 godine.

Uhuhuh, al će sad da opletu protiv mene.

[Adelaida]

Naravno da je duhovit. Pa smeh je lek. Pogledajte decu i ljude cista srca, neopterecene, njihov cist osmeh koji pleni...zdrav smisao za humor....to je od Boga dar.

[Снежана]

Uhuhuh, al će sad da opletu protiv mene.

 

Па наравно да ће да оплету кад ниси духовит

[Adelaida]

I u svakom Akatistu pise Raduj se....

Pa nismo valjda u srednjem veku...? 

[Снежана]

@,

 

Е а сад озбиљно....по мени радост и духовитост немају ама баш никакве везе (ал` то је моје лично мишљење)...слушала сам на "Слово љубве" неко предавање (давно је било ), где су причали о Исусовој духовитости, елем, кажу да се она огледа у његовој иронији према садукејима и фарисејима...

[Milan Nikolic]

Замислите да пише: ,,и када му то казаше, он прсну од смеха''.

[Снежана]

@,

 

Ма да..убиј гласоношу...ја ти казах шта сам слушала

[Sherlock H.]

An Argument for the View that God has a Sense of Humor

 

Does God have a sense of humor? Here is one argument to think that he does. Let us start with the following uncontroversial premise:

 

(1)       Having a sense of humor is a good-making property for human beings.

This does not seem to need much by way of defense: surely, ceteris paribus, we prefer someone with a sense of humor over someone without a sense of humor. In fact, when asked what we deem most important in relationships with other persons, the attribute of humor is usually in the top five. The second premise is as follows:

 

(2)       For any property P, if P is a good-making property for entity X and P is intrinsically good, then for any entity Y that can have P, P will be a good-making property for Y.

Let me point out two important features of this premise. First, it says that if something is a good-making property for X, then it is a good-making property for Y if Y can have that property. The following example illustrates the relevance of this restriction. It is good for a building to be hurricane-resistant. However, since God is an immaterial being, it would be ridiculous to think that God is hurricane-resistant. God does not even have all good-making properties that humans have. Being a fast swimmer is a good-making property, but, of course, God is not a fast swimmer—nor is he a slow or an average one; he is simply not a swimmer at all, given that he does not have a body. That some property P (say, being hurricane-resistant or being a good swimmer) is a good property for one thing X (say, a building or a human being) does not mean that it is also a good-making property for some other thing Y (say, God). Only if Y can have that property is it good-making for Y.

A second important feature of (2) is that it is restricted to properties that are intrinsically good. It is a matter of philosophical debate precisely how we are to spell out what it is for goodness to be intrinsic rather than instrumental, but it seems the following will do for our purposes: something is intrinsically good if it is good in itself or for its own sake rather than as a means to something else. It is good that the water in my cup is fluid, but merely because I want to drink it. It is, therefore, merely instrumentally good. However, the beauty of Rembrandt’s The Jewish Bride or the courage of a fireman who attempts to save someone’s life by risking his own life are intrinsically good, because they are good in themselves and for their own sake.

The third premise is:

 

(3)       Having a sense of humor is a property that is intrinsically good.

To have a sense of humor seems to be a property that is intrinsically rather than (merely) instrumentally good. To have a sense of humor is good in itself or for its own sake, not merely because it is a means to something else. Among the things that are usually considered to be intrinsically good are happiness, beatitude, contentment, and pleasures and satisfactions of certain kinds. To be amused seems to be one of the pleasures and satisfactions that are intrinsically good, for it seems that if someone is amused at something and there is nothing morally wrong about that, then that is a good thing in itself: it need not serve any further purpose in order to be good.

From (1) through (3) it follows that:

 

(4)       If God can have a sense of humor, then having a sense of humor is a good-making property for God.

The next premise is:

 

(5)       God can have a sense of humor.

I return to this premise below. (4) and (5) together allow us to infer that:

 

(6)        Having a sense of humor is a good-making property for God.

The next premise says that:

 

(7)       If having a sense of humor is a good-making property for God, he has that property.

And from (6) and (7) we conclude that:

 

(8)       God has the property of having a sense of humor.

Let me now defend the two premises not yet discussed. The reason to embrace (7) is that God is perfect in all regards. This is not to say that God will have any good-making property that he could have. It is, presumably, a good-making property of God that he has actualized the actual world. Assuming that God was free in actualizing this possible world, he could have actualized another possible world, and if he had done so, he would have exemplified the good-making property of having actualized that possible world. But God cannot actualize this possible world and another possible world. Hence, God will not have all good-making properties that he could have. With the property of having a sense of humor, things are different, though. There seems no property or set of properties that God contingently exemplifies, such as having actualized this possible world or having raised Jesus Christ from the dead, that rules out his having a sense of humor.

This leaves us with (5), which says that God can have a sense of humor. Is this true? Well, I see no reason to think that it conflicts with God’s omniscience. And I cannot think of a good reason to think that it would be ruled about by God’s omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, or any other properties that are traditionally ascribed to God as essential properties that he has. There seems to be nothing in the nature of being amused or having the disposition to be amused that is ruled out by God’s nature. Thus, for all we know, God can have a sense of humor.

It follows from the argument that God has a sense of humor.

 

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/2015/05/31/an-argument-for-the-view-that-god-has-a-sense-of-humor/

[emilija]

ako smo sazdani po liku Bozijem, a ima izuzetno duhovitih, onda imamo i zakljucak...

 

mozda je i duhovitost data kao talenat koji se moze upotrebiti ili zloupotrebiti, zavisi od slobode coveka sta ce da pushti iz sebe a shta nece....