Category Archives for Humor and/or Sarcasm

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…”

Bad Grammar

h/t to 300 Lutefisks!

Is “religion” compatible with science?

In recent comments to a prior post, my friend Mike once again raised the issue of whether religion was compatible with science (or vice versa).  With incredibly perfect timing, Bradley Monton (who I have identified in the past as one of my favorite atheists for his very open and honest views) authored a post that is right on point, Bias in academia.  The post is relevant on 2 fronts: First, it addresses the issue of “bias in academia” (obviously a very appropriate title), this time referring to philosophy as opposed to science.  His brief comments on this issue speak for themselves, so I suggest you head over there (when you’re done here) and read them.

Monton’s post was motivated by the introduction to a live-blog review of a debate between atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett, known for his pro-evolution, anti-religion views, and Alvin Plantinga, a well-known Christian philosopher who the author identifies as “one of the finest epistemologists of the last fifty years and one of the finest philosophers of religion since the Medieval period.”  At the debate, Plantinga presented a paper on the issue of whether theism was compatible with science. Dennett was there to respond.

I was pleased that Plantinga opened by stating that Theism is not incompatible with science, it is incompatible with naturalism, a point that I’ve raised (it’s always nice to know that you agree with really smart guys).  And, Dennett, for the most part, agreed.  Of note, Dennett said:

  • Evolution is compatible with theism
  • We don’t have to have a conception of randomness that is incompatible with theism
  • The theistic hypothesis can’t be refuted
  • Contemporary evolutionary theory can’t rule out ID

Dennett appears to have behaved exactly like I would have expected him to, and in keeping with much of the science v religion debate that I’ve seen.  Overall, he failed to address most of Plantinga’s points, and resorted to ridicule and insults (the comments tended to agree with the reviewer’s assessment).  It makes you wonder why he even bothered to show up, except that it did illustrate the current state of the science v religion debate.

A lesson in materialistic epistemology

This should serve as a good introduction to my upcoming post, The Inane Atheists:

Is there life after Obama?

From The Onion:


Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

The truth about the bailout

I’m beginning to think that the writers of Saturday Night Live are the only people in the country who really know what’s going on. The following clip is a good example.

And, if you didn’t see SNL’s Thursday version of Weekend Update, you’ve got to check it out.  Truly profound.

For those of you who can’t wait for the next season of Lost

The “God Gene” explained

among other things:

At least now I unerstand why I feel compelled to watch Nicholas Cage movies.

Another bailout proposed

As reported by Harper’s Magazine, Charles Bernstein has proposed a poetry bailout, geared to restore the confidence of poetry readers.  Bernstein said the following in a prepared statement:

As you know, the glut of illiquid, insolvent, and troubled poems is clogging the literary arteries of the West. These debt-ridden poems threaten to infect other areas of the literary sector and ultimately to topple our culture industry.

Cultural leaders have come together to announce a massive poetry buyout: leveraged and unsecured poems, poetry derivatives, delinquent poems, and subprime poems will be removed from circulation in the biggest poetry bailout since the Victorian era. We believe the plan is a comprehensive approach to relieving the stresses on our literary institutions and markets.

Let there be no mistake: the fundamentals of our poetry are sound. The problem is not poetry but poems.

As we know, lax composition practices since the advent of modernism led to irresponsible poets and irresponsible readers. Simply put, too many poets composed works they could not justify. We are seeing the impact on poetry, with a massive loss of confidence on the part of readers.

Whatever happens with the financial markets, let’s not let this warning go unheeded.

Thanks to John H at Confessing Evangelical for bringing this to our attention.

Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton take on sexism in politics

This is one of the funniest bits I’ve seen from SNL in a long, long time: