I’ve written a handful of blog posts on Apple-related topics and it would be easy to come to the conclusion that I’m an Apple fanboy. But if volume of words is a metric for judging who is and is not an Apple fanboy, I think the people most violently opposed to Apple would be more easily presumed fanboys.
For right now, Apple is one of only a handful of companies striving to do great design work. Moreover, the design work they put into their platforms (especially iOS) has created an ecosystem of well-designed apps that doesn’t exist anywhere else. That may be my favorite thing about them: the apps other people develop for their platforms. I also like Apple products because they’re high quality, well designed, and they work exceptionally well for my specific purposes. If something better comes along, I’m more than happy to jump off the bandwagon.
All of that said, Apple has announced two products recently that have a lot of geeks up in arms because they seem like awful decisions: the new Macbook with only one port and the Apple Watch. I’d like to share some thoughts on each of these, both from a design perspective and the perspective of a potential user. • • • Read More • • •
Some Mormons play guitar. I saw a few of them doing just that at a park a few months back. It does not, however, follow that all people who play the guitar are Mormons. The logical fallacy I’m addressing here is quite common today, so I want to start off by making sure everyone is aware of it.
There are also a lot of people who prefer the King James Bible who are absolute nutters—people who couldn’t tell the difference between a Nestle-Aland New Testament and a Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Old Testament. They say and really believe things like, “If it was good for Paul, it’s good enough for me.” But just because someone—say, the author of this post—prefers the Authorized Version (KJV) doesn’t mean he is a nutter—or at least that kind of nutter.
With that out of the way, let me make four brief arguments for why you should make an effort to ensure your King James Bible doesn’t get too dusty on your shelf. • • • Read More • • •
Rather than write an extended post on male modesty, I’ve heavily condensed my thoughts into twelve theses. If we’re being honest: it’s probably one of the best ways to ensure that men will read it.
- The Greek word for lust simply means powerful desire. It cannot, therefore, be reduced to only include sexual desire.
- Men and women are fully capable of having powerful or inordinate desires for all the same things. The difference between men and women is not in what the they can be tempted by, but rather what the are most prone to be tempted by. • • • Read More • • •
For some time now, Chris has been wanting to do an episode that talks about dating, relationships, marriage, and the rest of it. We’ve finally recorded one, but it’s definitely not a Valentine’s Day Special.
You should give it a listen, then tell us what you think.
When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, the first thing they tried to do was cover themselves. They sought out modesty to cover their shame, but it was wholly insufficient. Their flesh was hidden, but the sins of their flesh were left hanging in the breeze like so much dirty laundry. God Himself had to cover their sin and it’s worth noting that He did so through death. • • • Read More • • •
There was an article posted on Relevant Magazine entitled, ‘Christian Cleavage’ Probably Isn’t the Problem. In it, the author addresses yet another article, The Problem of Christian Cleavage (which was later renamed).
I’m not writing this post to beat up on the author of that post (or Relevant Magazine). I’m sure he had good intentions. There’s a host of articles out there that make many of the same points, so he’s certainly not alone in his opinions. He’s just saying what evangelical bloggers have been saying for years. All of his arguments are good, but in my opinion, he stops short of where he should have gone with them. I’ve decided to take his arguments and apply them in a less rigid, puritanical way. • • • Read More • • •
In this episode, Chris fixes his microphone, we talk about sportsing, and we have our first ever After Show. The idea for the After Show is that we talk about topics that our listeners are less likely to find interesting. This will generally be heady theological stuff since Chris is in seminary and I sometimes like to pretend I am.
We’re very interested in hearing your thoughts, so listen to the episode and then shoot us an email.
It’s been a while, but Chris and I finally got another episode out. Broadly speaking, the topic is the Charlie Hebdo incident. Some details include secularism’s tactics, the battle of worldviews between secularists and all religion, Christianity’s response to both, and Christian use of satire and related tactics.
I think our podcast is finally starting to come together. Having a flowing conversation with someone on the internet, and especially someone you don’t know very well, is very challenging. I think we’re getting better at it, but we’d love your feedback.
One last quick note: I’m not a pacifist. When I said that killing is wrong, I simply meant that murdering people is not an acceptable method for fighting a battle of worldviews. Civil government is given the sword in Romans 12 and it ought to use it, but use it justly—in accordance with God’s Law. Anyone else killing someone is almost always unlawful and therefore sin.
That aside, here’s Episode 006: A Conflict of Worldview
Cameras are tools that take pictures. They’re a fantastically complicated and often expensive tool. That often mean we can easily get lost focusing on what the camera does and ignoring what it is we do with the camera. People buy cameras to take pictures, but—to end a sentence dramatically and in a preposition—what are the pictures for?
This seems to happen more with complicated tools than with simple ones. People generally don’t buy an axe to chop wood without having a goal in mind for the aforementioned chopped wood. But people often buy nicer and nicer cameras in the hopes of taking nicer and nicer pictures while thinking very little about the purpose of pictures. Taking it one step further, people will even hire an expensive photographer to take pictures of their special event because that’s what you do, not because they have some objective those pictures will accomplish. With this post, I’m hoping to help change that. • • • Read More • • •
Fundamentalist Christianity was dead: to begin with. There can be no doubt. It was as dead as a door-nail. Its petrified, stone-cold corpse was buried long ago. No one bothered to mourn it because, quite frankly, neither it nor anyone else ever bothered to rejoice in its existence.
Now for those of you who may not know, “fundamentalist Christianity” or “fundamentalism” is a term used by Christian bloggers to speak of a sort of overly-serious, often self-righteous, and typically grumpy form of Christianity. There are a lot of other definitions out there and the word has morphed a lot over time, but that’s the one we’ll be using in this post. • • • Read More • • •
Here’s an article from the New York Times that is positively fascinating. The last few paragraphs say something about millennials, but I’m still trying to figure out what that is.