T
The_Smiter
Guest
Charles 22, lighten up, man.Nope, but you “could” be right. There’s nothing there to indicate that the children coming to Him were any bit more drawn to one thing than the other, but I happen to think their intuition, if you want to call it that, was a bit less surface level than falling for any ol’ smile that any con man could manufacture. I think it’s a bit insulting to Our Lord, or at least the children, to think they were drawn to Him just because of smiles. Why would Jesus make such a spiritual point about them if it was only just a matter of smiles which any ol’ chump could manufacture? Ever see an admonition for “blessed are the smiley people”? Nope, “blessed are the sorrowful”.
Think of the text, though it’s vague to me right now. Just where did Jesus smile? The children were already there, remember? It was mr. radical Peter, wasn’t it, that wanted them swooshed away. So did Jesus smile at that point when He insists they stay? It’s not like one has to smile and laugh to draw people, as some of the most phoney people behave that way (though anything Jesus would do would be genuine) and so you can’t rely on it. Were these children ignorant of Christ? Had they not heard He was the Messiah and therfore more inclined towards Him? Had the woman touched His garment because he was a smiley person, and surely smiley persons heal you? Do smiley persons forgive your sins as in the case of Mary Magdalene (IOW, it was a LOT more than smiles that drew MM)? I mean if Jesus won complete strangers over with smiles, then where’s His teaching on it if it’s so important? You would think if it were, He would had been recorded smiling even just once wouldn’t you? And since “Man of Sorrows” so abruptly contradicts that, you would think there would at least be a smile recorded all the more wouldn’t you? But, no, there isn’t. I say something isn’t recorded, was because it wasn’t too important and certainly two cryings isn’t exactly overwhelming either, but then we have Man of Sorrows to get around don’t we?
Why, there could just as well be a case that Jesus cried when Peter was wanting to take the children away. If crying is such a bad thing that can’t possibly draw people, then I would presume had Jesus done it then, then the children would run away, right? I was drawn to my mother in the hospital, not the least of which because she was a walking smilefest; quite the opposite.
To reduce Christ to people being drawn to Him was because he was a walking smilefest, is to have no idea what spirituality is about, even if He did manage to smile every once in a while (I don’t think He “didn’t” smile, just that He wasn’t a walking billboard of smiles, and more sorrowful than smiley anyway), And still we have this Man of Sorrows hangup. I don’t recall the crucifixion being a “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” Monty Phython smilefest either. What does that tell you about your bad times, since you guys seem to think Jesus was all smiles? Do you think the Art Linkletters of the world care about your sorrows, other than to write books about how wrong you are being that way? And then there’s Jesus, a guy who has been through the sorrows…a guy who knows what it’s like. How can the sorrowed trust a man who knew it not? How can the poor trust a man who knew it not? How can the lowly trust a man who knew it not? Maybe, just maybe, sorrow would draw the children more than smiles, afterall, it would show He was one of them, wouldn’t it? Who were the smilers? The Romans. Now is it starting to sink in? I’m just speculating of course, but I still think the way He used His lip position was of very very secondary importance, but I think I’ve made strong enough case for the lip movement perhaps being quite the opposite than you guys think, but, we will never know for sure anyway. I’m just inviting you to get off the Art Linkletter school of thought for a minute, okay?
Besides guys, I wouldn’t knock sorrows so much. God’s proving He existed to me, started with the happiest moments of my life, that is, the saddest time of my life. The happiness that followed, would had been meaningless without that sorrow, for my soul had to be emptied in order to be completely filled thereafter. It’s a basic christian tenet. How sweet is the sorrow, that bringeth the sunshine thereafter. Isn’t that part of the whole purpose of this earthly existence (valley of tears), to partake in sorrow so that we too can arise in the happy splendor of Heaven? This culture has really got you guys thinking that sorrow is a very bad thing and that Jesus would have no part of it, haven’t they?
