Monkeys….need i say more?

There’s something about monkeys that makes them invariably funny.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8avOiTUcD4Y]

HT: Kevin DeYoung

Benny Hinn calls out Joel Osteen

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-ej7n7Nhns]

A few days back I posted this video and received a slew of comments quickly:

“His error is lumping all “seeker-friendly” churches in with Joel Osteen. WFC is seeker-friendly, and also very clearly and openly declares Jesus as the way, and the Gospel as the true Word of God. (Not to mention that there are plenty of videos and recordings of Mr. Hinn making false prophecy and committing heresy, so…)”
“I got a kick out of the strategic organ playing whenever he would get to those high points. It just drew me in… next thing I knew my hands were lifted and waving on their own and I was speaking in some heavenly language that no one else could understand. Just playing of course… a bit of sarcasm.”
“I don’t listen or read anything Benny Hinn says. He disgusts me.”
“You know I went to India and stayed with Prakash Yesudian He is the Billy Graham of India. He told me had more respect for Benny Hinn than for Mother Teresa. He said it was because Benny Hinn gave the gospel and brought people to the saving knowledge of Christ. Mother Teresa, however, told Prakash when he visited her told him that she and her people did not introduce the dying and sick to Christ because their job was to pray for them and help them not bring them to Jesus. That was God’s job. This made me stop and think about how we really see people.”

and my favorite (and personal reminder)….

“Strong comments my friends, before his master Benny will stand or fall, but for the record i do not agree with much of his theology concerning the kingdom. In private discussion i think these kinds of intense fellowships are better facilitated, before others it appears to be a house divided and we know what happens to that house. Lets major on the majors and minor on the minors.”

After viewing the video what do you think? Joel has since apologized for his comments does this change anything? Please comment below (and don’t be shy)……

Is the Bible reliable?

Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (where I go to school) will host a debate and lecture series called The Scrolls and the Scriptures Conference on April 1-3 in the Chapel. The question of the conference is, “The Bible as Artifact: Who Wrote It and How Was It Preserved.”

The event will kick-off on April 1 at 7 p.m. with a debate between Dr. Craig A. Evans from Acadia University and Dr. Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina. Both professors are experts in the field of biblical studies, which include the Dead Sea Scrolls and textual criticism. The focus of the debate will center on the reliability of the biblical accounts of the resurrection.

Dr. Craig A Evans is the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament and director of the graduate program at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. Dr. Evans’ research has led to conferences on subjects including the Dead Sea Scrolls, issues related to the image and perception of Jesus Christ and archaeology of the Bible. He writes extensively on the historical Jesus and the Jewish background of the New Testament era and the author or editor of over 50 books.

Dr. Bart D. Ehrman is a New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Ehrman writes about the early Christians, using the term “proto-orthodox” to describe the Christian traditions that would later be defined as orthodox. He describes first- and second-century Christians as not yet having a unified, orthodox tradition. He has also written or edited twenty-three books, numerous scholarly articles, and dozens of book reviews.

This should be a rather vociferous debate and I am hoping that you will attend with me!

The youngest person to ever turn 70!

In honor of his 70th birthday I would love to hear your best (clean) Chuck Norris jokes. Please remember he is listening watching and preparing his [in]famous roundhouse kick!

Caption Please!!!

Why I am intolerant…

You’ve seen these, right? They truly bother me . So much so that I sometime contemplate running cars with this bumper-sticker off of the road (I know, I know, I’m repenting and joking). Why, you may ask? Because the bumper-sticker doesnt really mean what it says.

Let’s break it down. We’ll call each worldview by the letter it’s supposed to represent. So:

C = Islam
O = Pacifism/ Peace
E = “Gender equality”
X = Judaism
I = Wicca / Pagan / Bah’ai
S = Taoism / Confucianism
T = Christianity

And let’s use a very broad definition of “coexist”: living together without calling for the destruction of each other. Here are the problems with that:

C wants to kill E, X, T, and (by implication) O. If they achieved the world they wanted, I and S would also no longer exist.
O doesn’t allow for effective resistance or defeat of C.
E stands in direct opposition to C, X, and T, and accuses those who speak against them of hate speech. Also, they’re trying to edge X and T out of public arena in favor of their own agenda. (They’re afraid C will be offended, so they get less trouble. See the first point) E is actually very, very intolerant.
X’s existence is threatened not only by C but also by O, who invariably supports C over X.
I and S are statistically insignificant and are mainly on there to complete the bumper sticker.
T is who the bumper sticker is really arguing against, but poses no physical threat to any of the others.

Historically, T has brought about more tolerance (“coexistence” if you will) than any other movement. A fair share of pain and suffering have been brought under that um But the kind of “coexistence” the people who make this sticker envision is one where at least X and T are completely marginalized.

Being an immature 30 yr old prideful, dogmatic reformed young man I wanted honk at people driving cars with this sticker while shaking my fist. Just as suddenly as frustration wells up my heart that same heart also begins to break, not because I’m appalled at the driver for having the bumper sticker, but because the depravity of our culture tells us that the only way “peace”, and “hope” can be obtained is by conglomerating all apparent “truth” together. Post-Modernism denotes the idea that truth is not objective but subjective. Truth does not identify things as they actually are, truth identifies what I want it to be. What’s true for me is true, and what’s true for you is true for you. Having a culture that fully embraces this definition of truth presents complete opposition to the general message of the Bible. While the depraved man cries out for “COEXISTENCE” Christ cries out for allegiance to him alone to the glory of His name forever. In this we find our “peace” and our “prosperity” that we long for so much.

What say you?

Stairway to Heaven?

The sculpture, by Spanish artist Eugenio Merino (Madrid, 1975), represents a Muslim worshipper, a Catholic priest and a Rabbi. The three of them are immortalized in the act of praying, each one in his own fashion: the Muslim bending, the Catholic kneeling and the Jew standing. The piece comes with the controversial title “Stairway to Heaven”. To a closer look, we see that the books of the three religions are inverted: the Jew prays with a Koran, the Christian with a Torah ( תורה ), and the Muslim with a Bible.

The artist obviously defends his work: “It is not a work of art meant to offend. My idea is the coexistence of the three religions, joint in a common effort to reach God, in a literally way. I think the message is positive.”

Is the sculpture anti-Semitic, because it suggests once again the stereotype of the Jewish people ruling the world, standing on top of the column, closer to God? Or should that be taken as a compliment?
Maybe the sculpture is anti-Islamic, since the Muslim is crushed at the end of the pile. Or should that be taken as a compliment, meaning that Islam is at the base of world religions?
And what about poor old Catholicism, squeezed in the middle, the eyes closed? Or maybe the column is not meant to suggest a hierarchy?

How should we read this piece?