Laughing instead of Thinking

 Postman makes a distinction between people laughing instead of thinking and people not knowing what they were laughing about and why they stopped thinking. Postman points out that people are no longer thinking, but the problem is that they are unaware why they are laughing instead of thinking. Therefore  people laugh more and think less, but do not even notice the difference. This distinction is important because it shows the problem of our changing society is rooted much deeper than just switching from thinking to laughing. The problem is we do not understand the reason the change is taking place.

A Day Without Talking

   I thought it was very difficult to use only pictures and acting to communicate at lunch! We had a lot to talk about after two snow days and it was hard to draw what we did those two days. Also we wanted to discuss how our day without talking was going, but it was frustrating when other people wouldn't know what I was trying to draw. Sometimes it was really funny how far off they were on guessing what I was trying to show. This relates to Postman's point that smoke signals are not a sufficient means of communication and words are much more effective when trying to explain an idea. I am now aware of how hard it would be to communicate with people using pictures everyday. This also relates to Postman's point that society is changing from a time of seeing magic in writing to a time where magic is seen in electronics. Words are very powerful and should not be lost.

The Downward Spiral

   In both the novel Amusing Ourselves to Death and Dr. Postman's interview, he discusses the changes that are taking place in society. In the book, he tells that his book examines "the decline of the Age of Typography and the ascendancy of the Age of Television". In other words, he explains how as time progresses our society will use written words such as newspapers and magazines less and less. Instead, everything will change into something that can be shown on television. In the video, Postman also predicts how people will change in upcoming years. He quotes the man who wrote Being Digital saying "In the next millennium we will find we are talking with, as much or more, machines as human beings." Postman says people will talk to door knobs and toasters as if it is completely normal to talk to non-living objects. He claims that people are already beginning to do this by talking to their answering machines. Another argument he makes to convince his audience this will happen is that people adapt to many things. For example, a soldier gets used to killing, a child adapts to living without a father, and wives learn to live with an abusive husband. In the same way, people will adapt to talking to machines. Postman gets across the same point in the book and the video, the changes taking place in society are not improvements.

   The video and book also relate in that they both talk about the importance of image. During the interview, Postman expresses his belief that in the near future a human being will be cloned. A sheep, a monkey, and possibly a  frog have already been cloned. He also discusses the idea that every human born will have a clone that they lock up and if the person every needs a kidney or other body part they will take it from their clone. In the book, he says that TV newscasters spend more time on looking good than on reading their scripts. He also mentions touching people up for television or magazines. The picture shown on the front cover of a magazine is not an accurate portrayal of their actual appearance. His point is clear in both the video and book, our concern with image is leading to a selfish and naive nation.

Watch What You Say

   1) Chavez’ intends for the first six words to inform the reader that she sees the need for courtesy when engaging in discussions.  These words are important because throughout most of the article Chavez discusses how eliminating offensive words will “denude our language of color, passion, or good metaphor".

  2) Chavez uses the word "bellicose", which means inclined to war, because she wants to make the point that these type of metaphors have always been used in politics. She says that if the phrases such as "took his best shot" are no longer used it would leave us unable to accurately express ourselves. 

  3)Chavez is trying to persuade the reader that we should not stop using words or phrases just to avoid offending certain people. We must think before speaking, but this does not mean we need to say everything in a gentle, soothing way so we do not offend anyone. Her best example to get this point across is the Los Angeles Times restricting the use of the words "Indian", "Hispanic", "ghetto", and "inner-city" and replacing them with what they saw as less offensive words. She has a very good point after this in that it is not the words we use that are the problem, but they attitude behind them. Simply forbidding certain words will not resolve the problems.

4) I agree with Chavez that we should not stop using certain words, to avoid offending someone. It is not the words used that cause problems, rather the intent behind them.

Going Green

Semrau makes the point of his essay clear when he says “Please consider joining me.” The way Semrau keeps information from the reader definitely helps the intent of the essay. His intent is to persuade the reader to consider giving their body as a cadaver once they die. Semrau begins by discussing what it means to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Then he tells about his life and the different jobs he has worked. Only near the end of the article does he reveal his point. I think this method is very effective because it makes the reader curious where he is going by giving all this information that appears random. Then he starts talking about how he plans to go to go to Harvard’s Medical School and the reader most likely wonders how he would get in at such an old age. At this point, Semrau finally reveals his purpose for writing the article and all the previous topics make sense. In the beginning of the article Semrau says he likes to focus on the reuse part of going green. Then, after he reveals that he plans to give up his corpse for studying purposes, it makes sense why reuse applies the most to him.

Savior of the Nations Come

Martin Luther’s theme in the hymn, “Savior of the Nations Come" is salvation through Jesus Christ who humbled himself to come to Earth, then triumphed over the devil, and will return one day to take all believers with Him to paradise. One language tool Luther uses in the hymn is description. This method is very effective in supporting his theme. The entire hymn focuses on Jesus, yet the actual name is not mentioned. Instead Luther describes Him as Savior, Virgin’s Son, Word of God, the Father’s only Son, God the Son, and our King. The adjectives pure and fresh are also used to describe Jesus. One could summarize the first three verses simply as Jesus was born of a virgin and not conceived by people, but by the Holy Spirit. However, Luther goes into much greater detail and adds that though the whole world disowned Him, He will still be enthroned in heaven. It is very important that Luther does not stop with Jesus being born of a virgin, but finishes the story by explaining how he overcame death and won the victory so we can spend eternity with Him in heaven if we have faith, through the Holy Spirit.

Law vs. Gospel

Rev. Borghardt's Sermon

    Christ is mentioned about 37 times.

     The verbs Borghart mentions Christ doing are: makes us holy, was slain, took on our sin, died for us on the cross, lives again, died our death, rose, now reigns, put on our flesh and blood, took on our dieing, makes us alive to die no more, set us apart, put His holy name on our forehead, wants us, makes this a place of blessing, is with God, reigns on the throne with the Father, died for us, lives for us, and reigns for us!

The theme found in Rev. Borghardt's sermon is the complete opposite of that found in Jonathan Edward’s sermon. Edward’s whole message declares that those who are not part of God’s grace will face His wrath and be damned to hell. His law filled sermon only mentions salvation through Christ twice at the end. Borghardt’s point is much different in that he preaches mostly the Gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. His main points are that Jesus has done everything for us and all who believe in Jesus will live for eternity with all the saints in heaven.