BreakPoint

BreakPoint

Comments

Unfortunately, the Muslim butchers will probably "slaughter" all the Muslim non-believers!!!!!!
Please post the Fiji team winning a gold medal WITH them singing the song! It will not come up on any of the places I google it. Of course.
Has anyone read these books?
***SUPPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT***

VOTES NEEDED // PLEASE SHARE

This is Michael Eggleston, he is a retired military veteran and former police officer. He is currently in a contest for a custom motorcycle, to be built by Paul Teutel Sr. of OCC . If he wins, the motorcycle will be a tribute to Law Enforcement and he plans to use it as a goodwill ambassador. It will be shown on a television show also. If you have a moment, use the link to cast a vote for this hero, won't cost you anything but a few moments. Let's help get the word out for supporting our officers.

We all know the secular world has completely lost it's moral compass (and common sense). However this article proves that a Godless society will do absolutely anything to avoid taking a stand which even suggests there is absolute truth, even if it involves innocent children.
A medical ethicist now says a 13 yr old has the "right" to change his/her physical sexuality? And that his/her parents have no right to intervene in this surgical mutilation? You must have a heart of stone and the intelligence of an amoeba to negate parents' long standing legal rights to decide the best interests of their children.
This is an excellent response to the problem of CRT!
How Old is the Universe? What is big bang? Wouldn’t you like to know the truth about these questions? Relax, view, comment, like and subscribe to enable notification whenever a new helping video is published.
Princeton Trades Classics for Diversity?
Am amazing life due to another life that is beyond human's understanding!

Christian worldview commentary from the Colson Center, featuring radio host John Stonestreet. | Follow us on Twitter: @BreakPointCC. Since 1991, BreakPoint—a program of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview—has provided believers around the U.S.

with a Christian perspective on today’s news and trends. Our daily BreakPoint commentaries, co-hosted by Colson Center President John Stonestreet, air on some 1,400 radio outlets with an estimated weekly listening audience of eight million people. Its "BreakPoint This Week" counterpart, also hosted by Stonestreet and Shane Morris includes a weekly conversation with leading Christian writers and th

Operating as usual

09/03/2021

From the beginning, proponents of the sexual revolution have wrapped themselves in the mantle of science, especially social science. For example, in the 1950s, the “Kinsey Reports” helped normalize a range of sexual behaviors. They were also the source of the still-often-quoted “statistic” that 10 percent of people are same-sex oriented. Both that figure and the methodology behind Kinsey’s “research” has long ago been discredited. Still, that 10 percent number has stuck in many people’s heads.

A new wave of studies in recent years paints a rosy picture about the benefits of medical transitions for people with gender dysphoria. So much so that, as Paul Dirks recently wrote at Public Discourse, “lifelong experimental medicalization, sterilization, and complete removal of healthy body parts . . . is no longer a rarity. It is the recommended treatment for gender dysphoria.”

But what if these studies are like the Kinsey Reports? What if they reflect the bias and agendas of the authors rather than reality? Given what is at stake, this is a vitally important question, especially since social science itself is in the midst of what’s called a “replication crisis.” In other words, when other researchers try to replicate the findings of studies in the social sciences, they often cannot. This failure of replication even includes studies that are regarded as canonical in some fields.

So how can we distinguish between solid research and what won’t withstand further scrutiny when it comes to the so-called “settled science” of gender transitioning? Paul Dirks' Public Discourse article, “Transition as Treatment: The Best Studies Show the Worst Outcomes,” sums up the results of his deep-dive into the research.

Dirks defines “best studies” as those that have followed people who underwent medical transition for the longest period of time. “It is well recognized in the literature,” Dirks states, “that the year after medical [gender] transition is a ‘honeymoon period, which ‘does not represent a realistic picture of long-term sexual and psychological status.’”

Yet most of the popular gender transition studies are limited to just a few years following medical transitioning. Other studies that support medical transitions fail to follow up with as much as half of the original participants. That’s well beyond the threshold of reliability.

Many of the studies, Dirks states, are “fraught with . . . design problems,” such as “small sample sizes, short study lengths, and enormously high drop-out rates,” to name just three. The problem is so bad that one systematic review of the literature, “rated only two out of twenty-nine studies as high-quality.”

In contrast, the best-designed and most rigorous studies, whose results are most likely to stand up over time, found that medical transition was not the solution to the patients’ problems, especially in the case of male-to-female transitions. They reveal much higher mortality rates due to increased rates of su***de, AIDS, drug abuse, and even cardiovascular disease.

Another high-quality study found a 7-fold increase in su***de attempts and a 19-fold increase in completed su***des after transitions. Even when the findings are adjusted for pre-existing psychiatric problems, which are often treated as unrelated to the gender dysphoria, there was still a three-fold increase in psychiatric hospital admissions.

In other words, when it comes to medical gender transitioning, “the best studies show the worst outcomes,” and the current use of shoddy social science to support medical transitioning is not only misleading, but dangerous.

In this case, as is common in the social sciences, especially throughout the history of the sexual revolution, ideology is overwhelming truth-finding. Too many researchers think they know what the data should tell us, so they, at times unconsciously and at times consciously, design their studies to make sure that it does.

Sadly, the consequences of their failure are far worse than professional embarrassment or tarnished reputations. In this case, the consequences can be permanent and even deadly.

From the beginning, proponents of the sexual revolution have wrapped themselves in the mantle of science, especially social science. For example, in the 1950s, the “Kinsey Reports” helped normalize a range of sexual behaviors. They were also the source of the still-often-quoted “statistic” that 10 percent of people are same-sex oriented. Both that figure and the methodology behind Kinsey’s “research” has long ago been discredited. Still, that 10 percent number has stuck in many people’s heads.

A new wave of studies in recent years paints a rosy picture about the benefits of medical transitions for people with gender dysphoria. So much so that, as Paul Dirks recently wrote at Public Discourse, “lifelong experimental medicalization, sterilization, and complete removal of healthy body parts . . . is no longer a rarity. It is the recommended treatment for gender dysphoria.”

But what if these studies are like the Kinsey Reports? What if they reflect the bias and agendas of the authors rather than reality? Given what is at stake, this is a vitally important question, especially since social science itself is in the midst of what’s called a “replication crisis.” In other words, when other researchers try to replicate the findings of studies in the social sciences, they often cannot. This failure of replication even includes studies that are regarded as canonical in some fields.

So how can we distinguish between solid research and what won’t withstand further scrutiny when it comes to the so-called “settled science” of gender transitioning? Paul Dirks' Public Discourse article, “Transition as Treatment: The Best Studies Show the Worst Outcomes,” sums up the results of his deep-dive into the research.

Dirks defines “best studies” as those that have followed people who underwent medical transition for the longest period of time. “It is well recognized in the literature,” Dirks states, “that the year after medical [gender] transition is a ‘honeymoon period, which ‘does not represent a realistic picture of long-term sexual and psychological status.’”

Yet most of the popular gender transition studies are limited to just a few years following medical transitioning. Other studies that support medical transitions fail to follow up with as much as half of the original participants. That’s well beyond the threshold of reliability.

Many of the studies, Dirks states, are “fraught with . . . design problems,” such as “small sample sizes, short study lengths, and enormously high drop-out rates,” to name just three. The problem is so bad that one systematic review of the literature, “rated only two out of twenty-nine studies as high-quality.”

In contrast, the best-designed and most rigorous studies, whose results are most likely to stand up over time, found that medical transition was not the solution to the patients’ problems, especially in the case of male-to-female transitions. They reveal much higher mortality rates due to increased rates of su***de, AIDS, drug abuse, and even cardiovascular disease.

Another high-quality study found a 7-fold increase in su***de attempts and a 19-fold increase in completed su***des after transitions. Even when the findings are adjusted for pre-existing psychiatric problems, which are often treated as unrelated to the gender dysphoria, there was still a three-fold increase in psychiatric hospital admissions.

In other words, when it comes to medical gender transitioning, “the best studies show the worst outcomes,” and the current use of shoddy social science to support medical transitioning is not only misleading, but dangerous.

In this case, as is common in the social sciences, especially throughout the history of the sexual revolution, ideology is overwhelming truth-finding. Too many researchers think they know what the data should tell us, so they, at times unconsciously and at times consciously, design their studies to make sure that it does.

Sadly, the consequences of their failure are far worse than professional embarrassment or tarnished reputations. In this case, the consequences can be permanent and even deadly.

09/03/2021

**UPDATE**
Team USA beat Brazil this morning. They play China on Sunday morning in the gold medal match.

--

The U.S. Women’s Sitting Volleyball Team has made it to the gold medal match in the past three Paralympics, winning their first-ever gold in 2016.

In a recent interview with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, many members of Team USA pointed to Christ being at the center of their success. For example, Kaleo Kanahele Maclay, a setter for the team, said, “…my relationship with Jesus grounds me…I am praying that people can see God through me at the Games.” And middle blocker Nicky Nieves described how her faith intersects with her sport: “It’s a constant reminder of His grace, how much He has blessed me and reminds me that it would be dishonorable not to give it my all every time I play.”

**UPDATE**
Team USA beat Brazil this morning. They play China on Sunday morning in the gold medal match.

--

The U.S. Women’s Sitting Volleyball Team has made it to the gold medal match in the past three Paralympics, winning their first-ever gold in 2016.

In a recent interview with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, many members of Team USA pointed to Christ being at the center of their success. For example, Kaleo Kanahele Maclay, a setter for the team, said, “…my relationship with Jesus grounds me…I am praying that people can see God through me at the Games.” And middle blocker Nicky Nieves described how her faith intersects with her sport: “It’s a constant reminder of His grace, how much He has blessed me and reminds me that it would be dishonorable not to give it my all every time I play.”

09/03/2021

A new Texas state law bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks after conception. Opponents had appealed the law, but neither the Supreme Court nor a federal appeals court acted to block it. The law went into effect Wednesday.

Among those who oppose the law are a group known as the Reproductive Freedom Congregations, a coalition of 25 churches, who seek to “eradicate stigma” around abortion, LGBTQ, climate change, and a half dozen other popular progressive causes. Another 70 churches are in process to become members of the group.

One pastor said that joining this coalition is “about knowledge being the basis of your sexual life, so that the more you know, the better decisions you make.” Without exception, each congregation and every pastor that is part of the Reproductive Freedom Congregations have already decided that neither biblical revelation nor historic Christian orthodoxy are valid sources for knowledge or ethics in the modern world.

You can be sure: anyone who supports abortion already gave up on Scripture.

A new Texas state law bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks after conception. Opponents had appealed the law, but neither the Supreme Court nor a federal appeals court acted to block it. The law went into effect Wednesday.

Among those who oppose the law are a group known as the Reproductive Freedom Congregations, a coalition of 25 churches, who seek to “eradicate stigma” around abortion, LGBTQ, climate change, and a half dozen other popular progressive causes. Another 70 churches are in process to become members of the group.

One pastor said that joining this coalition is “about knowledge being the basis of your sexual life, so that the more you know, the better decisions you make.” Without exception, each congregation and every pastor that is part of the Reproductive Freedom Congregations have already decided that neither biblical revelation nor historic Christian orthodoxy are valid sources for knowledge or ethics in the modern world.

You can be sure: anyone who supports abortion already gave up on Scripture.

09/02/2021

Though Gen Z-ers have all but replaced Millennials as the dazzling object of scrutiny and cultural analysis, it’s not because Millennials are no longer struggling. Rates of addiction, depression, burnout, and loneliness are all disproportionately high among the demographic born between 1981 and 1996. Since 2013, in fact, Millennials have seen a 47 percent increase in major depression diagnoses.

For their part, evangelical Millennials are in a season of deconstruction and deconversion, or reeling from the many influential and high profile leaders that have recently either left the faith or fallen from grace. Disillusionment is now a dominant feature of this group that was once convinced it could change the world.

In his influential book The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt uses a rider and an elephant to illustrate moral psychology. The rider represents intellectual reasoning. The elephant represents immediate perceptions, intuitions and instincts. Most modern people, Haidt argues, think that their own moral frameworks are derived from objective, rational reasoning. In other words, it’s the rider who tells the elephant where to go and what to eat. In reality, however, moral decisions primarily come from our gut instincts, and we use intellectual reasoning to justify those decisions. Or, back to our metaphor, the elephant wants bananas, and the rider explains why bananas are good after the decision to get bananas has already been made.

If Haidt is right, we can better understand the beauty and power of Christianity. To borrow his metaphor, Christ speaks to both the rider and the elephant. “Like newborn babies,” the Apostle Peter tells us, “crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.” Christianity is not only ultimately true, it is also ultimately satisfying. It is satisfying, in fact, because it is true.

This provides a helpful lens by which to understand Millennial deconstruction, deconversion, and disillusionment. What if a generation of Christians have been taught to crave the wrong thing?

Recently, my friend Sean McDowell described a conversation he had with a deconverted evangelical. He was surprised to learn that this skeptic first started to doubt his faith at a Coldplay concert. Though there are plenty of anti-Christian bands, Coldplay isn’t one of them.

The lead singer didn’t challenge anyone’s faith or any particular truth claims from the stage. However, the concert produced in the skeptic so many of the feelings he had always associated with worship. The stadium of people singing in unison, the strong emotion elicited by lyrics and melody, and the unifying cultural grandeur of it all felt a lot like, well, church.

But then, what had this former believer been experiencing all those years? It suddenly seemed possible that Christianity was just another man-made phenomenon, enjoyable and moving but not really true. You know, like a Coldplay concert.

What if we are seeing the fruit of a generation that was sold endless attempts to make Christ cool and likable, worship relevant and hyper-emotional, and Christian morality more about politics and cultural influence than obedience to God? And what if this generation has now found those experiences elsewhere? What if all of the trendy marketing, political capital, and massive concert experiences inadvertently taught a generation to love the glamour and the feelings, but not Christ?

If there’s any truth to this analysis, there is also consolation. Many Millennials are discovering that there are no better answers “out there,” either. Yet, like all human beings, they still crave the truth, depth, and beauty found only in the Gospel.

Chuck Colson kept a plaque on his desk that read: “Faithfulness, not success.” Having climbed the heights of worldly success, he knew that nothing in this life could ultimately satisfy. Forced to reckon with how empty it all was, he encountered Jesus. As he wrote in Loving God,

God doesn’t want our success; He wants us. He doesn’t demand our achievements; He demands our obedience. The kingdom of God is a kingdom of paradox, where through the ugly defeat of a cross, a holy God is utterly glorified. Victory comes through defeat; healing through brokenness; finding self through losing self.

Culture – even Christian culture – comes and goes. The eternal truths of Christ are forever. And they are enough to satisfy a drifting generation.

Though Gen Z-ers have all but replaced Millennials as the dazzling object of scrutiny and cultural analysis, it’s not because Millennials are no longer struggling. Rates of addiction, depression, burnout, and loneliness are all disproportionately high among the demographic born between 1981 and 1996. Since 2013, in fact, Millennials have seen a 47 percent increase in major depression diagnoses.

For their part, evangelical Millennials are in a season of deconstruction and deconversion, or reeling from the many influential and high profile leaders that have recently either left the faith or fallen from grace. Disillusionment is now a dominant feature of this group that was once convinced it could change the world.

In his influential book The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt uses a rider and an elephant to illustrate moral psychology. The rider represents intellectual reasoning. The elephant represents immediate perceptions, intuitions and instincts. Most modern people, Haidt argues, think that their own moral frameworks are derived from objective, rational reasoning. In other words, it’s the rider who tells the elephant where to go and what to eat. In reality, however, moral decisions primarily come from our gut instincts, and we use intellectual reasoning to justify those decisions. Or, back to our metaphor, the elephant wants bananas, and the rider explains why bananas are good after the decision to get bananas has already been made.

If Haidt is right, we can better understand the beauty and power of Christianity. To borrow his metaphor, Christ speaks to both the rider and the elephant. “Like newborn babies,” the Apostle Peter tells us, “crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.” Christianity is not only ultimately true, it is also ultimately satisfying. It is satisfying, in fact, because it is true.

This provides a helpful lens by which to understand Millennial deconstruction, deconversion, and disillusionment. What if a generation of Christians have been taught to crave the wrong thing?

Recently, my friend Sean McDowell described a conversation he had with a deconverted evangelical. He was surprised to learn that this skeptic first started to doubt his faith at a Coldplay concert. Though there are plenty of anti-Christian bands, Coldplay isn’t one of them.

The lead singer didn’t challenge anyone’s faith or any particular truth claims from the stage. However, the concert produced in the skeptic so many of the feelings he had always associated with worship. The stadium of people singing in unison, the strong emotion elicited by lyrics and melody, and the unifying cultural grandeur of it all felt a lot like, well, church.

But then, what had this former believer been experiencing all those years? It suddenly seemed possible that Christianity was just another man-made phenomenon, enjoyable and moving but not really true. You know, like a Coldplay concert.

What if we are seeing the fruit of a generation that was sold endless attempts to make Christ cool and likable, worship relevant and hyper-emotional, and Christian morality more about politics and cultural influence than obedience to God? And what if this generation has now found those experiences elsewhere? What if all of the trendy marketing, political capital, and massive concert experiences inadvertently taught a generation to love the glamour and the feelings, but not Christ?

If there’s any truth to this analysis, there is also consolation. Many Millennials are discovering that there are no better answers “out there,” either. Yet, like all human beings, they still crave the truth, depth, and beauty found only in the Gospel.

Chuck Colson kept a plaque on his desk that read: “Faithfulness, not success.” Having climbed the heights of worldly success, he knew that nothing in this life could ultimately satisfy. Forced to reckon with how empty it all was, he encountered Jesus. As he wrote in Loving God,

God doesn’t want our success; He wants us. He doesn’t demand our achievements; He demands our obedience. The kingdom of God is a kingdom of paradox, where through the ugly defeat of a cross, a holy God is utterly glorified. Victory comes through defeat; healing through brokenness; finding self through losing self.

Culture – even Christian culture – comes and goes. The eternal truths of Christ are forever. And they are enough to satisfy a drifting generation.

Our Story

The truth is a powerful thing.

We live in a moment of cultural confusion. Fewer and fewer of the things that give meaning to our lives come easily. Family, community, beauty, truth seem to be constantly eroding around us—while our news feeds are full of despair, anger, and division.

How are Christians to make sense of the world around us? How can we make sure we have clarity in our daily lives?

Welcome to BreakPoint. A program of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, our commentaries offer incisive content people can’t find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion.

Videos (show all)

Did Afghanistan Fall Because They Refused to Fight?
Did President Biden Have to Withdraw From Afghanistan?
John spoke with Mindy Belz from World Magazine regarding the situation in Afghanistan.
Celebrating One Year of the Strong Women Podcast!
The Magna Carta of Humanity
An Exclusive Offer for You is Ending Soon!
A Message from John Stonestreet
Is Critique of Critical Race Theory Silencing the Oppressed?
Gain an Understanding of the imago Dei
Sarah Stonestreet on living in the image of God
Navigating Identity in Today's Culture
Why Did the IRS Deny Tax Exempt Status to Christians Engaged?

Location

General information

Articles shared on this page are the viewpoints of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of John Stonestreet or the Colson Center. We welcome comments from friends and followers. Comments are unmoderated, but may be removed under certain conditions. Obscenities and spam—including bashing, solicitations, repetitive or fraudulent comments, and comments that are irrelevant to the post under which they are written—will not be published.