The Benny Hinn Theological Drinking Game

Disclaimer: If you like Benny Hinn, I recommend not reading this post.  If you are offended by this post, whatevs.

Many, if not most, Christians drink.  These days even many Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians drink.  Heck...some have even (wrongly) accused me of being a Fundamentalist Christian, and I drink.  But what is the Christian drinker to do in a world full of strictly secular drinking games?  Aren't there any Christian drinking games out there?  Well, at least not that I'm aware of.  There are drinking games for those of virtually any political persuasion (Republican or Democrat).  There are TV show or celebrity themed drinking games.  There are sports themed drinking games.  There are really lame, non-themed drinking games.  There are even drinking games for State of the Union Addresses.

I have hardly participated in any of them, especially in relation to the total number that exist (and I suspect no one else, save Lindsay Lohan [left], has either).  I am neither troubled nor disappointed by this fact.  However, if you happen to be a Christian in the mood for a drink or two (or more), I may just have a solution for you.

I stumbled upon a pretty fascinating video a while back that got me thinking about a new drinking game that Christians could play based purely upon Benny Hinn's preaching.  First I'll show you the system by which the drinks should be administered, then I'll show you the inspirational video:

For any service performed by Benny Hinn:

1. If a scripture is cited out of context - 1 drink 
2. If a clear heresy is taught - 2 drinks 
3. If a whisper is inserted into preaching purely for dramatic effect - 1 drink per section (not per word)
4. If members of the audience are "slain in the spirit" - 1 drink per 5 slain (this number can be amended in the instance of mass slayings in order to prevent debauchery by participants in the drinking game)

See if you can keep a proper count:

Alright, so if you're scoring at home, that's:

• Modalism 
• Nonotheism (or tri-tritheism)
• An extreme version of Nestorianism
• For lack of a proper term: corporetarianism (the belief that God has a physical body - if anyone knows a proper term for this one, please let me know)

So that's like...8 drinks right there.  Add in the two unnecessary and irrelevant whispers, that's 10 drinks.  Thank heavens the clip doesn't contain his justification for it, or we'd undoubtedly have to drink more under rule #1.  If someone was to be a real stickler, she could argue that he committed "corporetarianism" 3 times, Nestorianism 3 times, and modalism at least twice (but probably 3 times).  That'd be 20 (or 21) drinks.  That's like....Andre the Giant material right there, and it's only a little over a minute-long clip!

What if someone decided to watch this one?!?  I don't recommend it.  If we're going by the number recommendation from #4 above, by my (very rough) count that would require at least 30 drinks.  Probably more.

Anyone else have a great idea for a Christian drinking game?

Ending Disclaimer: This is not my recommendation to Christians to play the above drinking game.  Rather it is an ironic commentary on the fact that the knowledge of Benny Hinn's continued existence drives me to want to drink....a lot.

Golf: The Most Dangerous Game

As it turns out, I've been under a horribly mistaken impression.  I was always taught that golf is a gentleman's sport.  It's a sport where one both learns and demonstrates self-control, perseverance, and perhaps most of all patience.  At least in Missoula it appears that these are merely romantic notions that no golfer actually adheres to.  How do I know this?  Well, I'll tell you.

This is decidedly not the University of Montana Golf Course

I've golfed a number of times this year at the University of Montana's Golf Course.  It's a crappy little course, to be sure, but enough that one would at least expect a traditional golf experience.  One would be expecting too much if he expected this.  Each of my last two trips there I've been hit by golf balls coming off the clubs of the group immediately behind me: once in the leg on the fly from a drive (leg still hurts), and once off a bounce where I was able to swat it away.  I wouldn't blame you if your first reaction is to think that perhaps I'm just such a slow golfer that no one can possibly blame them for their impatience.  But no, in fact everyone on the course had been waiting at pretty much every hole both times.  Both times, the only reason I was within range of their balls was that I had been waiting for the group ahead of me.  I, of course, cheerily pulled out my 3-hybrid and hit their balls right back at them.  I even yelled "fore" once.

If anyone else watched The Players Championship this last weekend, you may have been as stunned as I was at the incredible impatience of the fans while waiting for Kevin Na to get past his yips.  At times he was taking a full minute to take his swing due to the immense pressure of the moment.  Fans began taunting him, singing various songs with "na, na, na" in them.  One "fan" even ran up to him and told him he better not choke because he has $2000 bet on him.  This, of course, made everything better.  Na shot a 76 on Sunday and finished out of contention.

Obviously the Na situation was an extreme, but I think it illustrates a point.  Too many people just go to the course to hack around and get done as fast as possible.  They bring their 6-pack (or worse, their Evan Williams, which some idiots we got paired with earlier this year did) and wreck their golf carts.  Where's the respect for the game?

I'm reminded of this great video that Ben Crane, the world's 50th ranked golfer, once made about learning to play fast golf:

Golf looks pretty ridiculous when played fast.  It's really sad, because golf can and should be the most relaxing and laid back sport on earth.  If you've got somewhere to be, just don't golf.  It's really that simple.  If you can't wait an extra 60 seconds to let people get out of range you have no business stepping foot on a golf course.  If a guy is struggling mentally, as in the case of Na, no one feels worse about that than him.  There's absolutely no reason for anyone else to be impatient about it.

In lieu of a good concluding salvo, I simply ask (in case I run into the situation again): what should be the etiquette if the group behind you hits you because they were too impatient to wait?  I contend that the gentelmanliness of the game can be set aside in these situations in order to take (at least) one solid attempt at returning the favor.

On Semantics

*NOTE: this is highly outdated.  I began writing this post about 15 months ago but then quit blogging.  But, since I still find the subject compelling and am still outraged by it, I figured I may as well finish it.  The story below is from my time at Northern State University in Aberdeen, SD.

A certain professor of mine absolutely floored me today [roughly February, 2011]. In order to protect her anonymity I will not mention her by name. I'll just call her Grofessor Dathy Bourtney. In the course of class, she had given us advice regarding a certain situation (x) that I disagreed with. We then took a test over the material and on it there was a question regarding this situation. The question was formulated thusly: "What would you do in situation (x)?" Being the honest person that I am, I answered by telling her the truth about what I would do in that situation. She promptly gave me no points for that portion of my answer.


After class I went ahead and pointed out to her that if she wanted me to regurgitate what she had told us we SHOULD do in that situation, she should have used the word "should" instead of "would" (or more precisely, she should have said "what did I recommend you do in situation (x)" since, obviously, I believed my response to the situation to be better than hers.  Otherwise, it's not what I would do.). Did I know what she told us to do? Yes. That was not the question. The question was what I would do. When confronted with this obvious point I was met with two responses: 1. "Well all the other students knew what I wanted there." 2. "That's just semantics."

1. What an idiotic statement. Not to mention dishonest, given that I saw other people's tests who missed the exact same question. But it's idiotic in the sense that it doesn't even begin to address the issue.  First, how does she know the other students didn't interpret it the same way I did but just happened to agree with her take on how (x) should be handled?  Second, even if the other students interpreted it how she wanted them to, it certainly doesn't follow that they interpreted it correctly.  It could very well be that they all interpreted it in a way that the definitions of the words used did not actually allow them to interpret it.

2. This is really the point of this post. There is nothing - NOTHING - I hate more than when, in the course of an argument or discussion a person's viewpoint is discounted with the statement that an important distinction is "merely semantics". If two words have two entirely different definitions, then a person should never be faulted for wanting those words to be used according to their actual definitions. What is the purpose of a definition if not to be used? Isn't this a slippery slope into really destroying the meaning of language altogether if we are to be faulted for not ignoring correct definitions? The notion that a professor would criticize a student for taking the wording of her test literally is utterly mind-blowing to me.

Consider this: in order to have answered this question in the way she wanted me to, I literally would have had to have given the wrong answer. If I say I would do (a) [when (a) is what she thinks I should do] when in reality I would do (b), I am both lying and answering the question incorrectly. I would say she is misusing the English language but that doesn't quite capture it. Strictly speaking she used proper English. Perhaps she just lacks the capacity to properly interpret what she wrote.


Either way, meaning is important. What is language if not a collection of sounds and/or symbols ordered in such a way as to represent very specific meanings? If we ignore those meanings can we really have any basis for communication?


The philosophy department at Bethel University, where I did my undergrad work, has a blog.  On it, one of the professors (I know not which) says it perfectly in a post regarding David Hume: "One of the most irritating expressions tossed about by students and other would-be disputants is that a problem is really "just semantics." Besides denigrating the worthy field of semantics, it is often misused for problems that are not really about the meaning of words but about concepts. And, most frustratingly, it seems motivated by the twin evils of carelessness (in the use of terms) and laziness (in working through an issue under debate)."

All that to say this: arguing semantics is good and many times necessary in order to share in meaningful conversation.  Don't shy away from it!

After quite a long hiatus, I've decided to get back into the blogging game.  This time I intend to make it permanent.  As you can see by the posts below, it's been quite a long time.  I shall briefly recap 10 things that have happened in the world since I last posted, since now 90% of what's on this blog is outdated:

1. Christopher Hitchens died of esophageal cancer.  Ordinarily here I'd write "RIP" but I'm not sure even he would want that given his ardent commitment to naturalism all the way to the death bed.

2. The Lions no longer suck.  The Mariners still do.  The Twins suck again.

3. I'm no longer a member of the NEA, thank God.

4. My 2010 NFL predictions sucked, but I did call the Super Bowl winner right.

5. My baseball predictions were even worse.

6. Tim Tebow and Jeremy Linn became national sensations like no one ever thought possible.

7. Politics blows like never before.  There is apparently not a single charismatic, principled, and electable conservative in the country.

8. We killed Osama Bin Laden!

9. Here is a list of favorite shows of mine that have been cancelled since last I blogged: 24 (well...barely after), The Chicago Code, House, The Finder, Awake, The Event.  There's probably more I'm not thinking of.  So frustrating.

10. I obtained my masters degree and moved to Missoula, MT.

And with that everyone's caught up and I'll get back to blogging.  I plan to update my links and blogroll.  Topics will still be generally all over the place.  I will try to keep the posts going at a rate of at least one each week, but occasionally I'm sure I'll get frisky and do more.