Of debatable value?

The Great Debate: Does God Exist? | The Resurgence

In 1985 the University of California at Irvine hosted a public debate between philosopher Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein on the topic "Does God Exist?"....
Covenant Media Foundation has graciously given us permission to post the audio and transcript of the Great Debate. Take some time to listen to this audio or read the transcript for a great example of powerful Christian apologetics. It’s well worth it.

This debate somewhat helps illustrate why I'm not really a big admirer of the format: no matter how solid one side's arguments may seem to him or her, the other side often substitutes "I disagree" (although usually in more florid language) for refutation.  Often, both sides seem more interested in talking at each other than talking with each other.  Without an objective standard to weigh the strength of arguments, each side is free to consider himself or herself the winner.  Yet even though they rarely settle the matter decisively , I suppose they can still make interesting reading or listening.
I am curious to hear from anyone who has actually changed his or her beliefs, thoughts, opinions, or whatnot because of this or any  other similar debate, though.

Web of Trust and the new censorship

discovery.org | WOT Reputation Scorecard | WOT (Web of Trust)

discovery.org

Description:

Discovery Institute is a nonpartisan public policy think tank conducting research on technology, science and culture, economics and foreign affairs.

This is one of the many Christian sites that has received an "Unsatisfactory" or worse rating in at least one of the four categories- Trustworthiness, Vendor Reliability, Privacy, Child Safety- by Web of Trust (or WOT for short) users because they disagree with its views rather than  any alleged malicious material.  Since this means that anyone who has the add-on on their browser and tries to visit the site will be warned that it is a potentially dangerous site, such actions can best be described as attempted censorship and poisoning the well.  Evidently, there are those who prefer such tactics to an open exchange of ideas.
All this does in the long run, I would argue, is make the internet a less safe place by discouraging people from using an otherwise fine add-on or casting doubts about the integrity of its ratings in the minds of those who do use it.

A look at the dangers(?) of technology

your brain on technology « Don't Stop Believing

Over the last week I read some provocative books on digital technology.... Here are five things I’ve learned:

1. Texting has a proud and distinguished history....
2. The Internet is giving us Attention Deficit Disorder....
3. Google encourages distraction rather than reflection....
4. The Internet is destroying our memories.... 
5. The Internet never forgets.

 As I state in my reply, I'm not sure how much of this can be laid on technology and how much of it is the fault of the users (I also find it ironic that he's using technology to warn people of the dangers of technology):

1) The problem I have with the example here is that we don't have an alternate non-technological universe to make a comparison as to which is "better".  For all we know, it was the ability to hang up and text if the discussion became too emotional that lent her the courage to talk about whatever issue it was in the first place.
2-4) I think a bunch of this isn't the fault of technology per se, but how individuals choose to use technology.  Like you said, we could choose to read an entire book straight through.  I wouldn't be too surprised to find out that there are those people who still do so... and that many people who choose not to do so wouldn't regardless of the internet and other technologies.  On the contrary, one could argue that technology not only makes it easier to read a book (for those who choose to do so), but gives more options to more people as to how they do so (not just electronic book readers, but audio books as well).
5) I'm not quite sure what the point is here.  Our main reason for avoiding sin should be because it's wrong, not because other people might find out about it.  And we should be repentant whether they do or not anyway.

 His response:

One of the things that a lot of these books point out is that saying "its not the technology’s fault, its how you use it" is wrong. Technologies embody cultrual norms and values. The tools we use can change they world, yes, but they also change us. One example Dyer uses in his book is the shovel. We can move dirt with a shovel but in using a shovel everyday, we also develop stronger arms and calloused hands. The tool helps us change the world but the tool also changes us in the process. And this happens regardless of why you are digging the hole. In the same way, digital technologies can change our attention spans or our memory.

 And on it goes:

1) "Technologies embody cultrual norms and values."
Either I am completely misunderstanding what you mean here or this is completely false. Each individual is relatively free to use (or refuse to use) a particular technology as he or she deems fit.
2) "One example Dyer uses in his book is the shovel. We can move dirt with a shovel but in using a shovel everyday, we also develop stronger arms and calloused hands"
I have problems accepting the validity of this analogy. First, what is true about physical changes is not necessarily also true about mental and/or psychological changes. Second, the changes caused by the shovel are all (at least potentially) beneficial. Even the calluses, however painful they may be, may serve to toughen up the skin on the hand. Thus, it fails to show how a tool, when properly used, can lead to atrophy. Third, it ignores that there would likely be changes in the accomplishment of any task. I can just easily build muscle (and perhaps get calluses) walking instead of driving to the store as I can shoveling. And imagine attempting to dig the hole without using any tools. Fifth, even if mental and or psychological changes could be proven after the use of technology, this would not necessary show that technology caused the changes. It could be that those who are more susceptible to such changes are drawn to technology because of the ease it offers (or at least claims to offer). Therefore, it is impossible to say with any certainty whether they would have fallen victim to such changes whether technology existed or not. Finally, it fails to note that a jackhammer would cause even less physical changes, provided proper protection and precautions are observed Thus, one could argue that this illustrates that the problem isn’t technology itself, but technology that isn’t sufficiently advanced.
Note that my argument isn’t that technology is totally benign,
3) "One of the things that a lot of these books point out is that saying ‘its not the technology’s fault, its how you use it’ is wrong."
Unless the authors provide better proof of this in the books, this is just an argument from authority.
Note that I’m not I’m not claiming that technology is inherently safe, just that neither is it inherently dangerous,.. and that such dangers can be avoided by being properly prepared for them.

Is no Newts good Newts?

Don’t Be a Pastoral Newt | Ordinary Pastor

Well, sometimes we, well-meaning, burdened, conviction-having folks (particularly pastors) can begin to look and sound like a Pastoral Newt. We become defined by what and who we are against rather than who and what we are for. Instead of preaching Christ and Him Crucified it about us and then our opponents crucified.

Maybe it's just me, but that last sentence seems a bit awkward.  I'm guessing that Erik Raymond, the blog's author, meant to do one of two things:
1) put a comma after "Crucified" and a "becomes" after "it"; or,
2) put a comma after "Crucified" and change "it" (or even "it about", which would make the statement more parallel) to "we preach".
Either way, I suppose that failure to always achieve clarity is just one of the hazards of blog writing.

Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to define one's self by what one is for without also defining one's self by what is against.  Case in point: the claim that one is for positiveness is at the same time a claim that one is against negativity.  Since truth, by its nature, is exclusive, then sometimes preaching for Christ and Him crucified will entail preaching against beliefs that deny this central teaching.  However, I agree that this should not be our focus. Furthermore, I think there a few other pitfalls we should avoid similar to this.  First, we need to differentiate between what scripture clearly teaches or condemns on one hand and those areas where biblical teaching is not quite as clear-cut and, therefore, Christians may legitimately disagree with one another.  Second, even where scripture is clear, I think that Christians can legitimately disagree on how biblical principles should be applied socially and legally.  Third, rather than demonizing the unrepentant, I believe our attitude towards them should reflect the hope that they do find salvation.

Israel, Palestine, and the old saying about how two wrongs don't make a right

Christians and Israel « Deeper

If you find yourself in disagreement with the author’s central claims, I urge you to still give the letter a read. Consider what they have to say. The majority of the letter is devoted to understanding 2 key ideas: first, God’s promise of the land to Abraham and his descendants, and who it applies to (here’s a hint: the Israelites were not Abraham’s only descendants); and second, the conditional nature of Israel’s possession of the land. They were to treat the people in the land, especially including aliens, the poor, and so on- with justice, or risk losing it altogether (which they did when God sent both kingdoms into exile- only hundreds of years later were they allowed to return and partially reoccupy the land).

Now if the equations were as simple as Israelis = bad guys and Palestinians = innocents (or, conversely, Palestinians = bead guys and Israelis = innocents).

You know what would be a refreshing change of pace in this discussion? If one side (or better, both) would actually stop the pointless finger-pointing and finally admit that its own side perhaps isn’t as completely innocent as it portrays itself to be. By omitting key facts, this open letter shows itself to be nothing more than another example of this trend. While I have no intention of whitewashing or excuse Israel’s numerous wrongdoings, it would be equally objectionable to ignore the many wrongs that have been committed against it.

Feeling List-less? 10 ways church people fail their pastors

Joe McKeever: 10 Ways Church People Fail Their Pastors

1. Church members fail their ministers when they do not pray for them.
2. Church members fail their pastors when they pray for them, then reject what God sends.
3. Church members fail their pastors when they apply standards of perfection to them.
4. Church members fail their ministers by sitting in judgment on how well they do their ministries.
5. Church members fail their ministers when they are quick to believe the worst about them.
6. Church members fail the pastors when they abandon him to deal with the baddies in the congregation. 
7. Church members fail the pastor when they major on minor issues.
8. Church members fail their leaders when they murmur.
9. Church members fail their pastors when they do not deal with their anger toward some minister.
10. Church members fail their ministers when they are not faithful to the Lord.

Nothing to add from me.  But an article well worth the time to read.