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.

Fake Concern for Hitchens

I've given Christopher Hitchens a tough time in the past.  A well-deserved tough time, I might add.  But now he has cancer and I can't/won't bring myself to give a guy with cancer a tough time.  Ok, maybe a little.  But I'll keep it to a minimum.  Anyway, apparently some Christians decided to make last Monday "Everybody Pray for Hitchens Day".  For his part, Hitchens will not participate.  Say what you will about Hitchens (and I certainly am not afraid to), but if I were Hitchens I think I would be offended at this idea.  How can this be justified as more than ad hoc concern?   If people truly care about Mr. Hitchens won't they pray for him on days other than September 20, 2010?  To me this just wreaks of a publicity stunt at the expense of a man dying of esophageal cancer.  Declaring a public day of prayer for an arch-enemy of your faith is uncomfortably reminiscent of the Pharisees who made sure their piousness was seen publicly only to be classified hypocrites and snakes when Jesus confronted them.  Undoubtedly there are some who are sincere in their prayers for Hitchens...I just don't see why they feel this is the best way to show that concern.

The Megatron Incident

Ordinarily I try to keep this blog about politics, religion, philosophy, etc.  Trust me, I'm not trying to turn it into a sports blog.  That being said, I am a die-hard Detroit Lions fan so I would be betraying myself if I didn't post about the disaster that was the opening game of the season against the Chicago Bears.  I took away six important issues from the game:

1.   Brandon Pettigrew will go down as the worst draft pick in the first three years of the post-Millen era in Detroit.  Why?  Because he was picked as a way to bolster our offensive line ahead of Michael Oher.  When you have Jeff Backus sucking it up and left tackle because Gosder Cherilus proved to be incapable of playing that position in the NFL, why in God's name would you draft a tight end to bolster the line above a left tackle?  Well, it's official - Stafford has now been injured in 3 of his first 11 starts.  Sunday's injury was a direct result of Backus's dwindling ability to play that position.

2.  Jahvid Best is not the second coming of Barry Sanders.  Don't get me wrong - I like Jahvid Best.  But he is now getting to experience what Barry experienced his entire career: the ineptitude of the Lions offensive line.  14 carries for 20 yards is simply not going to get it done.  It's not Jahvid's fault, but that's little consolation.

3.  Matt Stafford should offer to take a pay cut if it means figuring out a way to get a new left tackle.  His health is on the line.  And money can't buy health (usually).  Really at this point I'd say his career is on the line.  It's very difficult for a guy to experience so many injuries early on and still turn in to a productive NFL player (see: Charles Rogers).  Obviously I'm being hyperbolic with the pay cut comment.  My point is simply that the Lions are wrong if they think their tackle situation is ok for the time being.

4.  The Lions defense may just be a lot more stout than originally anticipated.  This is not due to an unexpectedly solid secondary.  It is due to a truly dominant defensive line.  The Lions made their first legitimate goal-line stand in....I don't know how long, but trust me - it's been a long time.  The harassed Jay Cutler all day long and completely contained the running game.  A truly impressive performance by a unit that has been less than miserable since losing Shawn Rodgers to the Browns.

5.  Calvin Johnson, while typically an excellent and smart football player, had the worst game of his short career.  He caught 4 passes for 45 yards.  He dropped two passes, which he almost never does.  And then he dropped the third.  Unquestionably the most crucial catch of his career and the catch that would have given the Lions their first road win since September of 2007, and Calvin was so excited to get up and celebrate that he forgot to leave no doubt on the catch.  Consequently the Lions are a really, really bad 0-1.  Yes, I said it - it's Calvin's fault.

6.  The NFL is incapable of making rules that are easily interpreted.  Remember the "tuck rule"?  Yesterday the Megatron Incident reminded us what the receiving equivalent of that rule is.  Have a read:

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.  (Courtesy of Kevin Siefert)


Here's the video.  At what point does "the act of catching a pass" end?  At what point can the refs determine that "he touches the ground"?  Did Calvin lose control of the ball before the ball touched the ground?  If so, when?  If not, then shouldn't this rule be irrelevant to what happened after he let it touch the ground?  This is not "black and white" as the NFL has said.  Calvin's catch could easily fit as a catch within this rule if (a) Calvin's two feet and butt touching the ground qualifies as "going to the ground"; (b) Calvin is deemed to have had control of the ball during that entire process of "going to the ground".  Why should the "process" be determined to last after both feet and a butt have all hit while retaining possession?  I see no reason whatsoever as to why this rule necessitated the ruling given on the field.  This needs to be fixed, and fast.

It Appears My Hypocracy Knows No Bounds

That's right, I'm a hypocrite.  For I have done something I swore I would never do: I joined the NEA.

I assure you it was not by choice.  Nay.  I was required to do so in order to do my student teaching this coming spring.  I know you're all disappointed in me.  I feel legitimately dirty inside.  I'm going to need to drink a whole 24 pack of PBR just to prove I'm still a good American after this.

2010 NFL Preview

My goal for my football preview is simple: do better than I did in my baseball preview.  I like to set the bar low.

AFC East: Patriots
AFC West: Chargers
AFC North: Ravens
AFC South: Colts
Wild Card 1: Texans
Wild Card 2: Jets
AFC Champions: Texans

NFC East: Giants
NFC West: 49ers
NFC North: Packers
NFC South: Saints
Wild Card 1: Cowboys
Wild Card 2: Vikings
NFC Champions: Packers

DROY: Eric Berry
OROY: Ryan Mathews
MVP: Aaron Rodgers

Super Bowl Champions: Packers

No, I don't expect to be correct.  But I refused to pick repeats when possible to not call the repeat.  But I definitely wouldn't be shocked to see a Saints repeat.

On Quotes

*I started writing this post toward the end of last school year.  Then I got tired of writing my blog, so I never finished it.  I'm still quite sympathetic to the issue, though, so I decided to finish the thought and post*

Today I was once again reminded exactly why I can't stand people who say, "I love quotes," and then proceed to include 75 of them in their PowerPoint presentation.  Here's the story:

Today in my Classroom Management and Discipline class, all of us education majors were giving our final presentations.  Girl X begins her presentation by saying, "I love quotes."  She then proceeds to start quoting.  Not just one quote, but one-liner quote after one-liner quote from probably 10 different random people.  Bear in mind that she is supposed to be presenting her own, personal philosophy of education.  Has she ever read Jean Paul Sartre?  No.  Does she have any idea what he thinks about anything?  No.  She Googled "quotes about education" and found a couple by him.  She has no idea how well they represent his views on education (and neither do I...or anyone else in our class for that matter).  She certainly doesn't know anything about his communist sympathies or his pure anti-theism - if she did she definitely wouldn't have quoted him so readily given that I happen to know that she's a churchgoing conservative.  She undoubtedly has no idea how much he influenced the Khmer Rouge when they committed one of the worst genocides of the 20th century in the name of communist reform.

What's my point?  I'm so tired of people quoting those whom they know little or nothing about.  The quotes found on the internet (where most people get their quotes) rarely even come with a citation.  They are quoted without the slightest regard for their original context or intended meaning.  Taken in such small sections, these sorts of quips can be manipulated to mean anything the quoter wants them to mean.

Isn't this just one of the worst forms of plagiarism imaginable?  And lazy plagiarism at that.  I, for one, prefer that if anyone ever chooses to quote me they provide the quote in context and with reference to me.  I'm sure Mr. Sartre feels the same way...from his grave.

Just imagine: Paul Draper submits his most recent defense of the Evidential Argument from Evil to Faith & Philosophy for publication.  He begins the paper with a quote that reads: "There is no God - Psalm 14:1"  How would it be received?  Most likely as a joke, given his stature.  But what if I were to submit the same paper?  I'm guessing it would be thrown away prior to even getting read.

I don't know how to conclude this post from here.  That's all I have.  For the love of Pete, respect some context!  Rant concluded.

The Blog Is Back....Again!

As I'm sure all three of my loyal followers have noticed, I haven't created a new blog entry for about four or five months.  It is apparently high time I start up the blog again (I know this because I was told by my professor who gave us the assignment to have a blog this semester).  The good news: my readership should increase dramatically due to the other students in my class who may or may not be required to read it.  The bad news: I have to get back to searching for things to blog about.  The silver lining to that cloud, of course, is the fact that this blog covers a large variety of topics.  The touch of gray, of course, is that virtually none of my new readers are likely to care at all about many of those topics.

You can see I'm torn as to how I should proceed.  The answer, I suppose, is to proceed the same way I always have: I shall post about topics that most people don't care about at the risk of boring (and thus pushing away) my audience.  I hope at least a few of you enjoy.  First real entry to come this evening.  Stay tuned!