I watched my favorite Woody Allen movie this weekend, Crimes and Misdemeanors. There's a quote in it by a rabbi who ends a compelling conversation about God with, "I will always choose God over truth." Are those our only choices? Is all faith blind? Or is there a way to put trust in that which we can be confident in? A reasonable faith?

Think about some denominational and church names. Pentecostal Church - we are totally into Pentecost. St. Paul's Church - we are totally into that Paul guy. Lutheran Church - Martin Luther, that's our guy. how ridiculous is this premise? We distinguish ourselves based on a singular spiritual theme that we think we have right, or based on a single man other than Christ.

So, I was in the locker room the other morning. A guy says "Excuse me" and then starts rifling through my gym bag. What I didn't see was the second before when his goggles fell into my bag from his locker. I stood there in baffled silence, perhaps so impressed by his nonchalance that if he had taken my wallet, I'd have let him go. So, it got me thinking. You're somewhere (locker room, restaurant) where your wallet is out. A stronger comes up to you, says "Excuse me", takes the wallet, says "I'll be RIGHT BACK", and hurries away. What % of people would that work on? I feel like it might. Because crooks don't usually show that kind of courtesy.

Why do we have to be right before engaging in discussion? Why can't we just be legitimately curious? Because it means we're stupid - at least partially. Isn't that ok? I mean, who are we trying to fool? Wouldn't you likely be more persuaded by a humble thinker who's trying to learn than a person who think they have everything figured out?

Critical Thinking Test: "If I owned a golf course, I would display my patriotism by making all of the hole-flags American flags." Golfers, what's the problem with this idea?

I recently heard an argument against the belief of a giant flood (Noah's) in the ancient past because of the fact that every civilization has a story of a giant flood in their past. Wouldn't a catastrophic flood be more unlikely if the Jews were the ONLY people who had this story in their past?

would it have been moral to go and remove Hitler from power? U.S. involvement officially occurred after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. By the time Hitler was self-removed, 6 million innocent Jews died. 59 million total soldier deaths among over 20 countries. Over 2 trillion dollars spent. In hindsight, does a pre-emptive effort seem moral?

So, I asked one of my buddies if there were any girls that he would make out with that he wouldn't want to date. He said, "Of course." What does that say? That the pursuits of love and intimacy are separate? That he is not only looking for a woman to love, but additionally, women in general as a vehicle for that intimacy?

Should food be a basic human right? Explain your answer. Show your work.

Run a marathon more than once? You know you've thought it. And for those of you, doesn't that say something about ourselves? We can't imagine the fact that anyone did this heroic feat for more than the purposes of saying that they did it. That's why we Midwesterners go rub Lincoln's nose in Springfield, go to the top of the arch in St. Louis, and go to the top of the Sears tower in Chicago. To say we did. That's why we see certain movies, read certain books, eat certain foods. Those who continually do these things? Are they crazy? No. They actually enjoy doing the things we just want to have pictures of.