Vox Apologia III will be at “Revenge of Mr. Dumpling”, and entries can be sent in, starting tomorrow, on the subject of “Euthanasia”.

There is a LOT more info on his site, in this post.

Entry deadline is Midnight, Sunday the 30th.

Alex is taking a break from blogging – to take a vacation. In fact, he’s visiting pretty near me. my parets vacation in Gulf Shores quite a bit.

Weapons of Warfare has a good post, titled The Tension of Evangelism.



Eric, from Evangelical Underground, announces his first annual “Evangelical Blog Awards”. These awards have many, many categories, so go check it out – then submit your nominations, per the instructions in his post. I think the only ones I would qualify for would be “Apologetics”, and “New” 😀 (And, if you ask me, Weapons of Warfare should get the nod for apologetics, if he keeps his current rate up.)

Catez, from Allthings2All has established a “Women’s aggregator” for faithbloggers, titled “Women4God”. Read about it here.

Jeremy, at Parableman, cracks down on WorldMag.

My response? From the comments at Parableman:

I have to disagree with you, for one simple reason: How the sentence is constructed.

It doesn’t match what I was told to expect. It doesn’t match your
description, when I read it. I don’t even read World Mag – so I don’t
care either way – but I dislike a big ado about nothing.

Rolling Stone’s agenda in deciding to not run that ad was, indeed,
anti-Christian. The sentence structure used clearly denotes that the
subject of the “anti-Christian” statement, was, in fact, Rolling Stone.
They are anti-Christian because their worldview is antithetical to
Christianity, and their decision to not run the ad was based on a supposed policy to exclude ALL religious advertisement. (Which, incidentally, I think is a lie, through their teeth.)

The only time the post mentioned “anti-Christian” was linked
to a noun, via possession. “Rolling Stone’s anti-Christian agenda”. I
don’t know how the statement could be any clearer. Rolling Stone has
never, ever, ever been pro-Christian. It’s a ROCK magazine.

The sentence, (read in my mind’s eye paraphrase), reads “despite the TNIV’s gender-inclusive language, the anti-Christian agenda of Rolling Stone may bear fruit for Zondervan.

The subject of the sentence prior is Zondervan, and the storm of
media attention garnered for it. The “gender-inclusive” statement is
simply referring to the prior media storm created by that gender inclusiveness.

So, what they are in essence saying, is that Rolling Stone’s bungle may have negated the storm of negative controversy, by potentially promoting Zondervan positively, as being “discriminated against”.

I don’t see anywhere where they call anyone who doesn’t agre with the TNIV as “anti-Christian” – they call Rolling Stone
anti-Christian. Which, if you’ve kept up with Rolling Stone’s policies,
and articles over the years, is indeed consistently
anti-Christian/Judeo-Christian moral values.

The article makes no “endorsements” of the TNIV, calls noone “anti-Christian”.

I don’t know World Mag, and I really don’t care either way what they
say – as I rarely read them, unless linked to them, like I was here.

But, looking at the linguistic elements, I don’t see either of the above, in any way, shape, or form.

Reading the sentence as written, even with a anti-article outlook
going in, due to your post, I saw absolutely nothing of what you
described. Linguistically, your problem doesn’t exist. If you want it
to say something other than written, thus implying that he mistakenly wrote something, but meant something else… you might have a chance to make that work. I don’t see any reason to think so, however.

Anyway – that’s my take. I don’t care about World Mag – but I don’t
see anything even remotely close to what you’re talking about in that
sentence, as written – unless you take a healthy dose of
“interpretation” to it. A VERY healthy dose.

Bleh. I hate controversy within the body – I really do. But, I’ll respond to it, if I feel it needs to be responded to. I’m an apologist, yes. However, within the body, to someone I respect… I really don’t like doing it. Oh well. I’ll just suck it up, won’t I?

Weapons of Warfare weighs in from a different perspective, with Jeremy replying.

*sigh* (HT: Smart Christian – who is also debating Jeremy’s decision.)