Breakroom Studios - Latest Comments

Re: Breakroom Studios Tour

James Kennison — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:41:52 -0000

Dancing sidebars AND poop stains? Can things get better? I submit that they cannot!

Thanks for sharing your space!

Re: Superstitianity 03: God’s M.0. – Miracles or People?

Paul — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:17:24 -0000

Thought you might like to know I tried to tweet this as well as post it on Facebook. The tweet window showed me signed in, and it had my ID correct, but it said there was an "identifier" problem. I tried it twice. I don't know if it happens to anyone else, but I thought you'd like to know in case it prevents other tweets.

Re: Pop Mockers 01: Jesus VS Satan

Instrumentally — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 06:49:00 -0000

Congrats on your first episode my friends. I enjoyed this very much. More please!

~Z~

Re: Pop Mockers 01: Jesus VS Satan

Instrumentally — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 01:49:57 -0000

Congrats on your first episode my friends. I enjoyed this very much. More please!

~Z~

Re: Knowing God's Will - Part 1: The Big Plan

Chris Cowan — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:58:13 -0000

Thanks, Shammah.
You&#39re absolutely right about the "no eye has seen" (1 Corinthians 2:9) verse, which I have now removed. It&#39s particularly embarrassing, since I watched this excellent video by Britt Mooney (which you shared with me), which exposes the common misinterpretation:
http://youtu.be/__X5lnpSdoU
I&#39m not sure what happened, other than old habits die hard. Maybe this&#39ll be the subject of another blog entry...

Re: Knowing God's Will - Part 1: The Big Plan

Paul "Shammah" Pavao — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 02:29:19 -0000

This is very true, front to back. Very well said. I like to tell people, "A moving car is much easier to steer than a parked one."

You do a really good job with this blog, and I think you know me well enough to know I don&#39t give fake compliments.

One negative note. The "no eye has seen" verse is out of context. I believe the next sentence is "but God has revealed it to us" who love him or who are spiritual ... something like that.

Re: Superstitianity 01 – Freedom from the Law?

Chris Cowan — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:32:31 -0000

I addressed one misconception about pastors here: http://superstitianity.blog...
I don&#39t subscribe to some of the George Barna/Frank Viola ideas about how pastors shouldn&#39t be paid salaries or teaching in buildings, though.
I haven&#39t done enough research into the tithes subject to address it one way or the other at this point. Guess I&#39ll check out the link you provided!

Re: Superstitianity 01 – Freedom from the Law?

interracialpower — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:47:57 -0000

One way I explain the issue of Christians and the law
is through using the first of the List that God gave to Moses.
Jesus is the lord our God. He is our master and we are his slaves!
If Jesus is our owner then we own nothing outside of him.
We must do what Jesus wants us to do moment by moment we are on
His clock. Jesus is our law! To quote govenor Arnold S, " I am the Law! "
Ok Chris here are two questions I have for you?
Tithes? And Pastors? Do you find many superstitions around these two subjects? Both are large issues but you know I lean very organic!
http://churchtithesandoffer...

Re: Private: Are All Sins Created Equal?

interracialpower — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:37:30 -0000

Amen! All sins are equal is a doctrine as bad
In practice as judge not misunderstanding
Which ends up with using any judment is
Wrong. Rape is a superlust just as murder is
A super hate. All who murder have some hate. So
In my opinion some sins are a bunch put
Together. All outside actions outside Of the love of Jesus is sin.

Re: Saved by a Prayer

interracialpower — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 03:00:32 -0000

Wow Amen I agree it is troubling how widespread the abuse of the prayer has become. O my friend Chris you are stepping on Some toes. You seem to have guts challenging the tradition of the sinners prayer. Yes prayer as incantation to heaven is one of the great myths in present-day Evangelical circles.

Re: Private: Belief = Evidence?

Chris Cowan — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:06:50 -0000

I like what you have to say. Do I know you? :-)

Re: Don't Take The Lord's Name In vain

Chris Cowan — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:01:44 -0000

Swearing is another interesting topic... my feeling is this: If it&#39s considered offensive enough to the world that it warrants "explicit," "PG-13/R" or other cautionary labels, then it&#39s something we should avoid, just based on the fact that we are called to have HIGHER standards than the world. If we&#39re going to be offensive, let it be because we&#39re sincerely lifting God&#39s name up.

Re: We will always fail on our own?

Chris Cowan — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:57:45 -0000

It&#39s not attacking a straw man. This is a surprisingly commonly-held belief. This post is actually based off a discussion I had with someone who held the same beliefs that I am deconstructing in this particular post.
Also, read the third comment on this post, or talk to an extreme calvinist.

Re: Private: Belief = Evidence?

Rojikku — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:01:53 -0000

Another useful analogy might be that of a foreigner who relies upon a local guide to point out what is and is not safe or the story of how Bilbo and the dwarves followed and eventually left (to their detriment) the path that Beorn had shown them in "The Hobbit". In each case, we are able to see clearly that the conflict is not between blind faith and strong evidence, but rather between old, established evidence and current evidence. When I trust myself to God, I do it because the evidence I have received in the past through speculation, through personal experience, and on the authority of trustworthy sources is so overwhelming that to doubt God because it looks like He will not pull through is downright idiotic.

Now there are two kinds of people that I would expect to take issue with what I have said so far: the skeptic who believes that there is no such overwhelming evidence and the believer who is somehow convinced that we are not being faithful if we are relying on evidence. I&#39m not interested in replying to the skeptic here, chiefly because such a person is unlikely to ever read this post, except to say that if they do not think there is good evidence for God and the Christian understanding of Him, they have probably not seriously looked for any. The believer, on the other hand, I am in the mood to address. Firstly, our God is a god of reason. The Bible frequently states the wisdom and skillfulness displayed in Creation and in the history of His people and it is also doubtful that the One who endowed us with reason would not Himself be rational. Additionally, virtually every time God commands His followers to do anything in the Bible, He gives them proof of His identity. The time when God first appears to Moses is a good example of this in that He first appears to Moses in an unmistakably supernatural manner and then gives him a series of signs by which the Hebrews and Pharaoh will know who sent him and then even goes as far as to tell him what will happen beforehand so that even the circumstances which would otherwise discourage Moses serve as evidence that he did in fact encounter God in that cave. Finally, there is the fear among some believers that evidence leaves no room for faith. This fear is completely unrealistic, as anyone who has ever had to remember the logically strong evidence of the past in the presence of the emotionally strong evidence of the present will tell you.

Re: Private: Belief = Evidence?

Rojikku — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:01:37 -0000

To me, there are two passages that, when taken together, provide an exceptionally good understanding of this issue. The first of these passages is where we are told to "walk by faith and not by sight" and the second is the parable of the wise and foolish builders. For starters, I like the contrast between faith and sight because it is simply erroneous to set up faith against evidence in general and the words "sight" is very good at suggesting just that kind of evidence which faith is frequently set against.

Anyway, the image that I get from these passages is a man walking along an island of sand. All around him there are fruit-bearing plants and bushes with twigs and leaves that are perfect for building fires, but he knows he cannot build a home there because even though the island is very large it still never rises more than a few feet above the ocean and there could at any moment come a wave capable of completely reshaping the whole place. As he goes along, the man drags his feet through the sand, feeling his way along. Eventually he finds a rock buried beneath the sand. He still can&#39t see it, but after a while he is able to get a rough understanding of size and shape of the rock. He may look around and see fruits ripe for the picking in the distance while the only trees that grow on the rock are thorny and uninviting, but he will make his home on the rock nonetheless. He does this because even though his sight is telling him that the rock is a barren place, he knows from experience and from speculation that when the storms come the sand will simply wash away and give him no safety while the rock will hold firm. The trees may look unpleasant, but if he can build a shelter using them for support or rely on them to discover the rock&#39s hidden holes and crevices, that shelter will easily outlast any built in the appealing places of the island.

Re: Don't Take The Lord's Name In vain

Rojikku — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:58:41 -0000

THANK YOU! As far as I can tell, there is not a single scripture in the entire Bible that is actually concerned primarily with cursing. Every verse I&#39ve ever heard cited as having that purpose is actually about gossip or something else of the sort (in this case, hypocrisy and spiritual corruption). Obviously it is wrong to use the Lord&#39s name lightly and if you are in the presence of people whose consciences would be offended by swearing you should refrain from doing so but that is as far as the Bible goes in that area. The words are not important, how we use them is.

Re: We will always fail on our own?

Rojikku — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:53:46 -0000

I feel like this is kind of attacking a strawman here. Maybe you&#39ve run into people who have taken the claim that we can do nothing on our own in that sense but I haven&#39t. I also feel that it is an absolutely vital aspect of the doctrine to defend and I feel this precisely because it is a truth which I resisted long. In my understanding, the claim that we can do nothing apart from God means three things. The first thing is that our strength comes from God, since it was originally made by God and it is sustained by the Holy Spirit, regardless of whether or not we accept Him. If the presence of God fully left any one place, that spot would literally be Hell on Earth. The second thing that the phrase means is that just as we have no power to earn our own strength or goodness, we also have no power to keep it. There is no moment of your life when every thing you own and every skill you possess can&#39t be taken away from you by disease or accidents or malevolent intentions. The third meaning is that all our accomplishments are a vain chasing after the wind if they are not submitted to God. It is true that God can use that which we have not surrendered to Him, even our sins, but unless we surrender we shall not share in the resultant glory and joy.

Re: We will always fail on our own?

Chris Cowan — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:25:34 -0000

It&#39s true that only God can see the heart, but I think it is possible to label certain actions as good, because the Bible is full of good deeds we are instructed to do. These actions don&#39t make us righteous, but our unrighteousness doesn&#39t mean we are incapable of doing anything good at all. One of my main points in this post wasn&#39t that we should go around labeling actions as "good," but simply that we shouldn&#39t go around judging actions as "bad," just because they are committed by an unbeliever.
One could say, "well you don&#39t know their intentions/motivations," but the same thing can be said of someone whether they are Christian or non-Christian. The best we can do is accept something at face value, which I think is a lot better than either making blanket statements or trying to scrutinize every action.

I think you meant to reference ISA 64:6, which says, "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away."
The point of this verse (and the other verses you used) isn&#39t that they were INCAPABLE of doing good things (otherwise, it wouldn&#39t have been referred to as "righteous acts"); rather, the point being made is that the righteous acts are worthless in the big scheme of things, since your good deeds do not nullify the sins you commit. It&#39s not a commentary on individual actions, but a commentary on our over-all state apart from God.
This is something that I think makes the story of redemption so amazing, so poignant. It&#39s not that we are incapable of doing anything good apart from God; it&#39s that even the most righteous person among us is still completely worthless to bridge the gap between us and God, because God is too pure! As Romans 3:20 says, the law condemns us, not because we&#39re incapable of ever obeying ANY of the laws, but because we are incapable of obeying ALL of the laws, which is what God requires (James 2:10).
Thanks for the discussion, "Unknown."

Re: We will always fail on our own?

Unknown — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 06:14:04 -0000

How are we defining "good" and "success"? I agree that the unbeliever can accomplish an act that may provide themselves or others with a certain amount of worldly satisfaction, but I believe that only God can deem any act or result as "good". Even the righteous acts of His people were deemed filth in light of the fact that their "good" deeds were done without God in mind (ISA 64:4). At the same time God has used the enemies of His people to accomplish His good will, but it was of no credit to those enemies (JER 50:18).
Your final point includes the truth of our inability to save ourselves (Rom 3:28), but seems to ignore that our sinful nature has negated our ability to accomplish any good by our own efforts (Mark 10:18; Rom 3:12). You seem to cite that any who adhere to portions of God&#39s revealed wisdom can benefit from them in this life, but the good still rests with God (Psa 115:1). No, this is not a distinction between the saved and the unsaved, but instead this is the limitation of humanity due to sin. So I agree with the point of this topic, but was wary of the manner of argument. Too many make the mistake of labeling evil as good (ISA 5:20), myself being counted in that number. We are all desperatly dependent on God&#39s goodness, and I think we do fail in life until we recognize that.

Re: Apologizing for God

MadCowan — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 03:56:20 -0000

Yeah, I don&#39t think he&#39s saying not to ask questions about it... in fact, I&#39m pretty sure he&#39s saying the opposite. I think what he&#39s saying is that we need to make sure we figure out what God is actually saying, and that once we know what He is saying, we shouldn&#39t question Him. If God is saying something harsh, then we shouldn&#39t try to make it sound like He&#39s saying something gentle, nor try to explain it away.

Re: We will always fail on our own?

Kallah Denson — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:38:25 -0000

Love this post Chris! Amen!!

Re: Apologizing for God

Paul "Shammah" Pavao — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:37:05 -0000

I admire Francis Chan, and I completely agree with his general position in this video. I&#39ve said very similar things myself, and I would still say them.

But when I ask questions about eternal torment, I&#39m not questioning God. I&#39m questioning whether what I&#39ve been told about God is true. I&#39m questioning whether I&#39ve understood the Bible correctly.

Of course, that adds more questions. You know my love of history, so it matters to me what the apostles&#39 churches of the 2nd century said about eternal torment. It would be a big deal to me to disagree with them on eternal torment because I suspect they knew not only the Scriptures but apostolic preaching as well.

The point, though, is that as I ask those questions, I am not questioning God. I am questioning whether I have understood God and his words correctly.

Re: We will always fail on our own?

Paul "Shammah" Pavao — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:08:34 -0000

Wow. This is not only wise, but really well said. How old are you?

Re: What’s your favorite “This Just In”?

Alexander (Fritos) — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 19:46:51 -0000

My favorite is "The ACLU is suing Jesus Christ for infringing upon Obama's rights to be the one true Messiah."

PS this blog is actually very enjoyable, you guys should promote it on the show more! (that way it can actually get read)

Re: Superstitianity 02 – “It’s Not a Religion; It’s a Relationship!”

Rojikku — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:22:56 -0000

I&#39ve ranted about this a couple times. My main issue with the phrase isn&#39t that it&#39s claiming Christianity is more than it actually is, but rather that this is claiming that it is less than it actually is. The true practice of Christianity should result in a vibrant emotional life (although not the cheap emotionality of Disney Channel or bumper sticker slogans), but it should accomplish more than that, should in fact touch upon every aspect of the believer&#39s life. When people say that Christianity is not a religion, they are also denying it&#39s intellectual authority and the vast wealth of theological and philosophical knowledge that God has given us for the glory of the Kingdom. And this blatant surrender has more than academic consequences (but I should add that even if that were the case this would still be disastrous; everyone is presented with all the same massive abstract problems whether or not they make a career out of those problems) since it also means that when someone has a problem which they absolutely cannot deny is spiritual they will be as likely to go to a Christian as to a doctor that has burned all his diplomas and told everyone that medical school was a waste of time. At the same time, however, I think this trend also reflects a desire in believers to validify their beliefs and an epistemological shift in our culture. We now think of science as the only legitimate way to truth, and as such religion (which is most effectively argued for through dialectics) is not considered completely subjective. In fact, it is considered "enlightened" in this age to formulate religious beliefs purely on one&#39s feelings. In this way, claiming that one&#39s beliefs are a result of a highly personal experience can be a means of claiming that they have some slight validity. At least then Christianity resembles something that can be seen and touched.