Whatever side of the abortion issue you fall on, no one should be getting upset about this ad. Much ado about nothing if you ask me.
My current musical obsession…
http://www.myspace.com/owenpallettmusic
Pitchfork’s review of Owen Pallett’s new album, Heartland
Being the dork I am, I sometimes spend time on iTunes looking at various podcasts. As with most forms of media, there’s a lot of junk out there. However, there are some true gems hidden throughout the endless pages of podcasts on the iTunes Store. For anyone is planning on studying for the LSAT or just wants to improve their critical thinking and analytical skills, there is the LSAT Logic in Everyday Life podcast made by Princeton Review, the infamous standardized test prep company. One of their podcasts dealt with President Obama’s recent state of the union address, specifically the portion on health care reform. The commentators break down of the logical strengths and weaknesses (some of which were not very obvious) of the President’s speech was pretty fascinating and helpful if you really want to learn how to win an argument.
This podcast caught my eye because of its relevance to Christian apologetics and Christians who want to learn how to better defend their faith. A lot of Christians think they know logic and how to interact with a skeptic. However, in my experience, most Christians our naive at how non-Christians or atheists actually view Christianity and with how they will argue against it using formal logic. If Peter said in I Peter 3:15, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,” than as Christians, we should be training ourselves to improve how we give an answer to skeptics questions and doubts. A part of that is learning how to better dissect an argument with better logic, and maybe an easy way to do so for you is the LSAT Logic in Everyday Life podcast. And don’t worry you don’t have to tell your friends your nerdy new podcast listening habits. I can imagine opening up any conversation with the words, “Hey, you should check out this sweet new podcast I found. It’s called, LSAT Logic in Everyday Life,” will probably not win you any friends, but then again, when they start to walk away, maybe you can logically expose their shallowness and guilt them into being your buddy. Ah yes, a good foundation on which to build any friendship.
Disclaimer: Just like we shouldn’t guilt people into our friends with logic. Let’s remember to what Peter says and answer skeptics with gentleness and respect. Even if you win an argument and come across and a total jerk, you’ve done the Kingdom of God no favors. Been there… not a good feeling.
After decades of controversy over whether schools should utilize abstinence-only sex education programs over other programs, a new study has found that abstinence-only programs saw only one-third of participating sixth graders engage in sex within two years of the program while half of students who participated in other classes were sexually active within the same amount of time. Abstinence-only programs have come under harsh criticism from the media, politicians, and many others in recent years for their supposed ineffectiveness and naivety regarding teenagers likelihood to engage in sex. In fact, President Obama recently cut nearly $170 million in Federal funds for abstinence-only programs in schools across the country. You can read more about the study and its impact in an article from the Washington Post here.
Well, my mourning period has about ended. It still stings a little but the pain is beginning to subside. I guess there’s always next year…
I saw this on Justin Taylor’s blog earlier this week and thought it worth sharing on here. It’s an address that Ravi Zacharias made at a UN prayer breakfast about eight years ago:
I remember lecturing at Ohio State University, one of the largest universities in this country. I was minutes away from beginning my lecture, and my host was driving me past a new building called the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts.
He said, “This is America’s first postmodern building.”
I was startled for a moment and I said, “What is a postmodern building?”
He said, “Well, the architect said that he designed this building with no design in mind. When the architect was asked, ‘Why?’ he said, ‘If life itself is capricious, why should our buildings have any design and any meaning?’ So he has pillars that have no purpose. He has stairways that go nowhere. He has a senseless building built and somebody has paid for it.”
I said, “So his argument was that if life has no purpose and design, why should the building have any design?”
He said, “That is correct.”
I said, “Did he do the same with the foundation?”
All of a sudden there was silence.
You see, you and I can fool with the infrastructure as much as we would like, but we dare not fool with the foundation because it will call our bluff in a hurry.
HT: Justin Taylor
The Minnesota Vikings lost last night in heartbreaking fashion. I was prepared for it. In the back of my mind, I knew to expect it. But just as let my guard down as we were driving to put ourselves into position for the game winning field goal, BAM! Brett Favre interception. Overtime. Saints field goal. Buzzkill.
Bill Simmons of ESPN said it best:
“Jets/Bills/Vikes/Browns fans expect to get punched, contort their faces
into a giant wince, wait for a punch that never comes, say to
themselves, “Cool, I’m not gonna get punched, it’s gonna be OK!” …
and then they get clocked.”
Yep. That just about sums it up. So with that, I am going to go and continue to sulk and mourn for a while. See ya when I get done.
Yesterday was the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and, to recognize the weighty significance of the day, Justin Taylor had an interview with Pro-Life legal advocate, Clarke Forsythe (J. D., Valparaiso University; M.A., bioethics, Trinity International University). Forsythe works as senior counsel for Americans United for Life and offers some fantastic insights on how he believes Roe v. Wade can be overturned.
Forsythe says:
Successful advocates have to know their opponent’s case (and its weaknesses) better than the opponent does. Those who advocate against Roe need to be “open-minded” enough to thoroughly understand the decision—including its impact and the reasons why it still stands 37 years later—better the supporters of Roe. We can’t successfully overcome political obstacles unless we thoroughly understand them. After William Wilberforce committed his parliamentary career to the goal of overturning the slave trade in 1787, he spent at least a year—maybe more—studying and understanding the slave trade. Open-mindedness is necessary for discernment.
Read the rest here.
Further evidence of the Twilight series’ detrimental impact on American culture…
