Skip to content

Category Archives for Humor and/or Sarcasm

Orthodox hell and the Scarlet Rob Bell

The Eastern (Orthodox) church has been thinking about hell a lot longer than anyone else, simply because they’ve been around the longest. Yes, there were Christians before Augustine. However, very few western evangelicals (of the post-liturgical variety) care about what the early church (post-Canon) thinks. After all, they didn’t have the benefit of the Enlightenment, and they didn’t all jump into line behind Augustine (who falls into the category of “Nice guy, but possibly a heretic”).

Yes, I’m being facetious.

What the Orthodox believe about hell

Apparently one or two people in the west are becoming interested in what the Orthodox believe about hell, possibly looking for more votes. Scot McKnight actually references a book of Orthodox theology in his post today, Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent into Hades from an Orthodox Perspective by Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev. I confess I’m not familiar with the Archbishop, but it sounds quite interesting. I like reading Orthodox theology; it certainly provides a fresh perspective.

McKnight provides some notes taken from the book (bullet-points are mine, for the sake of readability):

  • Irenaeus is typical in seeing both the descent and a release of the patriarchs, prophets and saints from the Old Testament period.
  • Hippolytus: John the Baptist also descended to preach to those in hades.
  • Clement of Alexandria: Christ descended and preached to the saints and to the Gentiles who lived outside the true faith. Hell for him was a place of reformation. Origen is like Clement, but emphasizes human choice.
  • Issue: how to define the various terms, but many saw places. That is, there’s Abraham’s bosom, and hell, and hades, and a prison.
  • Athanasius: leans, at times, toward the universal redemption or release from death. The famous text “Christus patiens,” attributed by some to Gregory Nazianzen, poetically sketches a universal release of the dead through the descent. Cyril of Alexandria follows this line of thinking; so does Maximus the Confessor.
  • Many are somewhat ambivalent or clearly believe Jesus’ release was only for the saints, and an example is St John Chrysostom. John Damascene emphasizes human choice by those in the realm of the dead and so not all are liberated. St Jerome is in this camp of saying at times that all are liberated but other times not all are liberated.
  • A decisive voice in this issue, especially in the West, was Augustine who believed in both a descent but not all in a “second chance”. For Augustine, death was final and the only ones in hades who were released were those who were predestined in God’s elective grace. What is interesting, though, is that Augustine was clearly battling many who did think Christ emptied hades and death and hell of all its inhabitants. Gregory the Great completed the Augustinian perspective.
  • Alfayev emphasizes that the Eastern fathers did not spell things out the way the Western fathers did.

It’s an interesting post. As I think I have mentioned here in the last couple of weeks, the Orthodox generally believe that everyone will end up in God’s presence; however, those opposed to God will have a negative experience (not unlike that painted by CS Lewis in The Great Divorce).

The Scarlett Rob Bell

Rob Bell, meanwhile, continues to get roasted from nearly all sides. Even Lutherans are condemning him. So, this morning I wrote him a little poem:

Everybody’s picking on poor Rob Bell.
However, his book will surely sell.
But is he in heaven, or is he in hell?
That [darned] illusive Mr. Bell.

To more accurately parody The Scarlett Pimpernel, you could change it to:

They judge him here, they judge him there,
But his book is selling everywhere.
Is he in heaven, or is he in hell?
That [darned] illusive Mr. Bell.

Or not.

Written on 16 March 2011 by me under Exploring the Twain, Humor and/or Sarcasm, Theological Musings with 2 Comments

Early Jewish history (more or less)

I don’t usually post YouTube things here, but this one is worth it.  And he is my brother-in-law.

Written on 09 August 2010 by me under Humor and/or Sarcasm with 2 Comments
Tagged with , , , ,

I’ve been to this church!

“Sunday’s Coming” Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

via James F. McGrath

Written on 07 May 2010 by me under Church, Humor and/or Sarcasm with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , ,

The (Unadjusted) Gospel

I just heard that a bunch of pastors and theologians—Baptists and Calvinists by the look of them—met together this week to reaffirm the Gospel.  I read through the site, but couldn’t find anything that tells me what exactly they were affirming, which is actually kind of surprising, although I’m not surprised at much anymore.

Coincidentally, this morning a friend sent me a link to the this:

Lutheran Toast

A Lutheran Toast

It seemed oddly appropriate.

Written on 16 April 2010 by me under Humor and/or Sarcasm, The Gospel Uncensored with 2 Comments
Tagged with , , , ,

On the Impossibility of Mulltiple Universes and Realities

Since LOST, Fringe and Star Trek (not to mention Obamacare) have everybody talking about multiple universes and realities, I thought this post by Cornelius Hunter was timely (and besides, it’s a good read).

It got me thinking:  If there are universes out there where every potentiality is a reality, then there must be universes where evolution happened the way “science” believes it did.  There are also universes, then, where it didn’t.  There must be universes, then, where there is not only a God, but a God which created the world in 6 days (and others in which He created the world in six “periods” of indeterminate length).

I, however, fail to accept that there are any universes in which Calvinism is true; the premise of multiverse theory is that the realities must have potentiality in the original universe. (It’s a joke … think about it.)

If multiverse theory is correct, this means that:

  • Ours may not be the original universe, but a “splinter” reality only moments old. How would we know?
  • If the God of one universe is, in fact, infinite, omnipotent and omnipresent, then He is outside of all universes.
  • If an omnipotent God exists in one universe, then He must exist in all universes.
  • Atheism, then, is not a potential reality in any universe.
  • There are no universes in which God does not exist.
  • If there is a God in one universe, the potential for universes in which evolution and atheism are true ceases to exist.
  • Multiverse theory would seem to collapse with the potential that God exists.
  • Therefore, it seems that multiverse theory has failed, leaving only this universe in which God exists.

So, in the event that multiverse theory is correct, multiverse theory is impossible.

It would seem, that multiverse theory is either incorrect, or impossible.  What does this mean for LOST, Fringe and Star Trek?

Written on 16 March 2010 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Humor and/or Sarcasm with 5 Comments
Tagged with , , , , , , ,

The Post Post

Today I was reading yet another blog post talking about post-evangelical Christianity, and I realized just how sick I am of things being “post.”    All the time I’m hearing post-Christian, post-evangelical, post-conservative, postmodern, post-American, postnasal – I mean, what’s up with that?  It’s ridiculous.  Seriously, why does everything have to be post-something-else?  Why can’t it simply be what it is?  It’s a pain in the posterior; it’s enough to make a person go postal.

“Post,” apparently, is the  préfixe du jour, which is kind of ironic when you think that it’s a prefix that means “comes after.”  But, that’s the wonder of the English language.  Words – especially stupid words – do seem to come in and out of vogue; someone will use an odd word, and all of a sudden everyone is using it.  Years ago, I remember such a word was “diametrically,”  as in “diametrically opposed.”  Like “post,” it’s a word that really didn’t have to be used. I mean, how opposed to something do you really have to be? But, for a few years it seemed that no one was merely opposed to something, everyone was “diametrically opposed.”  And, like “post,” it didn’t really say anything about what anyone was, just what they weren’t.

If something is “post,” then it’s over; it no longer exists, it’s dead. Or, worse than that, it’s postmortem, after dead.  Dead is what it is.  If you’re worried about after dead, then you’ve got problems; post-traumatic stress, perhaps.

Being post is a lot like being a-something, like asymmetric, or perhaps asymptomatic.  Or an atheist, which is also all the rage now.  One of the reasons, I think, that atheists have such a hard time organizing is that they aren’t necessarily for anything, and they don’t necessarily have any shared beliefs; what they have is a shared unbelief.  Which, I guess, is a lot like being post something. The posts also have a hard time organizing, because, let’s face it, they’re simply too late.  They’re not only not for something, they’ve missed it – the ship has already sailed.

Why aren’t there any pre-anythings?  Wouldn’t it better to be a little early, rather than being late, or simply being not?   I guess that’s what prophets are – those who are pre-something.  Prophets are good people to have around – even the name is positive: pro-phet.  We don’t seem to have any of those guys around anymore. But, that’s a subject for another post.

I’m tired of all the posts; in fact, I’m against them.  I guess you could say I’m apostalic, railing against the posts. So, don’t talk to me about postmodernism or postevangelicalism.  If you are too late to be something, I don’t want to hear about it.

Written on 14 November 2009 by me under Humor and/or Sarcasm, Random Thoughts with 2 Comments
Tagged with , , ,

I am “The Architect”

I am “The Architect” – at least according to Carl Jung and Isabel Myers-Briggs.  I ran across an online Jung Typology Test, aka the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessment.  Being the test I took this time didn’t refer to Myers-Briggs, I’m guessing it’s a cheap imitation.  However, my results were consistent with one I took a dozen years ago.

I am, still, an INTP, along with folks like Descartes, Pascal, William James, Einstein, Bob Newhart and Rick Moranis.  We “architects” are, according to the site, only 1% of the overall population, which makes us a scarce resource, and therefore more valuable than the average person.  It also makes us a minority, which means we should be getting special treatment.  The fact that neither of these are true means that either the information is questionable, or that the public needs to be better educated. The fact that I am analyzing this proves that I am indeed an INTP.

Someone by the name of Joe Butt has written a profile of the INTP personality type, in which he writes

INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to almost anything until their principles are violated, about which they may become outspoken and inflexible. They prefer to return, however, to a reserved albeit benign ambiance, not wishing to make spectacles of themselves.

A major concern for INTPs is the haunting sense of impending failure. …

Anyone who’s read this blog or my comments on other blogs knows that this is pure crap, but what else could you expect from someone named Joe Butt.  He also writes

INTPs and Logic — One of the tipoffs that a person is an INTP is her obsession with logical correctness. Errors are not often due to poor logic — apparent faux pas in reasoning are usually a result of overlooking details or of incorrect context.

Of course, he’s provided absolutely no support for this conclusion, an obvious but poor attempt at an argument from authority.  And listen to this:

Knowing the Truth is enough for INTPs; the knowledge that this truth can (or could) be demonstrated is sufficient to satisfy the knower. “Cogito, ergo sum” expresses this prime directive quite succinctly.

How arrogant.  I really don’t need him to tell me anything.  Seriously…

Someone who is not named “Butt” has written a nicer overview of the INTP, otherwise known as the architect:

For Architects, the world exists primarily to be analyzed, understood, explained – and re-designed. External reality in itself is unimportant, little more than raw material to be organized into structural models. What is important for Architects is that they grasp fundamental principles and natural laws, and that their designs are elegant, that is, efficient and coherent.

Architects are rare – maybe one percent of the population – and show the greatest precision in thought and speech of all the types. They tend to see distinctions and inconsistencies instantaneously, and can detect contradictions no matter when or where they were made. It is difficult for an Architect to listen to nonsense, even in a casual conversation, without pointing out the speaker’s error. And in any serious discussion or debate Architects are devastating, their skill in framing arguments giving them an enormous advantage. Architects regard all discussions as a search for understanding, and believe their function is to eliminate inconsistencies, which can make communication with them an uncomfortable experience for many.

Ruthless pragmatists about ideas, and insatiably curious, Architects are driven to find the most efficient means to their ends, and they will learn in any manner and degree they can. They will listen to amateurs if their ideas are useful, and will ignore the experts if theirs are not. Authority derived from office, credential, or celebrity does not impress them. Architects are interested only in what make sense, and thus only statements that are consistent and coherent carry any weight with them.

Okay, I seriously think I need to rename this blog, except that people would think I liked to design buildings, or that it was a reference to the character in The Matrix.  I’m not quite that delusional.

Seriously, I do think that the Myers-Briggs test is pretty accurate in many things, and this information can be useful.  It can also be used to justify behavior, which it shouldn’t.  I’ve always thought that it was most important in pointing out where you were most likely to fail… but, that’s probably just that impending sense of failure talking.

INTPs and Logic — One of the tipoffs that a person is an INTP is her obsession with logical correctness. Errors are not often due to poor logic — apparent faux pas in reasoning are usually a result of overlooking details or of incorrect context.

Written on 19 September 2009 by me under Humor and/or Sarcasm with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , ,

Satire and Irony

Satire and Irony are one or two of my favorite literary devices (depending upon your definitions).  Most people don’t really understand either, and don’t expect me to help in that regard. (I just needed some type of introduction to tie the following two links together.)

First, you just have to go here to understand.  It’s just plain funny, whether it’s meant as satire or not.  I’m choosing to believe it is.

Next, a post from Debunking Christianity, to which my reaction was simply, “how ironic.”  I don’t think I have to explain.  If you don’t get it, just read a few other posts, then come back to this one.

Written on 15 September 2009 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Humor and/or Sarcasm with 2 Comments

The best spam comment I ever received

I get hundreds of spam comments on this blog every week. Sometimes I look through them… I’ve found one or 2 real ones that got caught for some reason or other.  Most spam comments are meaningless, others are stupid. This one was outrageously funny:

You know so many interesting information. You might be very wise. I like such people. Don’t top writing. – KonstantinMiller

He doesn’t realize how right on he really is.

Written on 06 July 2009 by me under Humor and/or Sarcasm with No Comments
Tagged with , ,

A little theological humor at the expense of the emerging church

This is a slightly modified version of a joke I heard yesterday in church:

Three pastors – an evangelical, a Roman Catholic priest, and an emergent pastor – died and found themselves at Heaven’s Gate with St. Peter.  Peter explained that they had to correctly answer one question before they could gain admittance. If they answered wrong, they’d unfortunately be excluded.

Peter first turned to the evangelical pastor. “Who do you say that Jesus Christ is?”

The pastor started, “The Bible says, …”

“Sorry,” Peter replied. “I asked what you believed, not what the Bible said.  You cannot come in.”  Turning to the Priest, Peter asked, “Who do you say that Jesus Christ is?”

The Priest thought a moment. “The Pope and Church tradition says…”

“I’m sorry, Father, but you, too, failed to answer the question.”  Peter now turned to the young emerging pastor and asked the same question.

The young man began, “Jesus Christ is the Messiah, God’s Son, and the Savior of the world.”

Peter smiled wide.  As he turned to open the gate, the emerging pastor continued, “But, on the other hand…”

Written on 04 May 2009 by me under Church, Humor and/or Sarcasm with 3 Comments
Tagged with , ,