Congratulations to Seth, the randomly chosen winner of Scott Rae’s Moral Choices! Seth blogs at Reformed Seth.
Many thanks to everyone who took the time to enter and list the books you’ve enjoyed recently. Look for another giveaway soon of Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell.
Some of the interesting books you’re reading include . . .
- Russ Shafer-Landau’s Whatever Happened to Good and Evil?
- Has Christianity Failed You by Ravi Zacharias
- Who Made God? by Professor Edgar Andrews
- The Word of God and the Mind of Man by Ronald Nash
- Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
- The Knowledge of the Holy by A.W. Tozer.
- Timothy Gombis’ The Drama of Ephesians
- The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction by Kent L. Yinger
- Hard Questions by William Lane Craig
- Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective by Norm Geisler (aka The Geis!)
Some good stuff there. If you’re looking for new things to read, you’ll find these and several other good leads in the original post’s comments.
It seems to me that Seth won simply because he has a blog — was there a criteria to the comments? It was implied that to win, your comment had to be reflective, and that blog admin. would “read through” the comments and choose the most persuasive one.
To state now that the winner was “randomly chosen” is to be misleading. Ironically, you were giving away a book on ethics.
By: Richard O on December 13, 2010
at 3:56 pm
Hi Richard,
Did you enter this giveaway (I don’t see your name in the comments)? I don’t believe I implied that the giveaway would be based on the “quality” of the comments. That’s why I didn’t list any criteria I would be looking for — just the name of a book (although, of course, people were free to elaborate on their book choices). Seth didn’t win because he had a blog, but because he was randomly chosen from the list of commenters. To suggest I was acting “unethically” in this regard appears premature and rather uncharitable.
All the best,
Chris
By: Chris on December 13, 2010
at 11:34 pm
Dear Chris,
It’s not being uncharitable if it’s true; it is misleading to state you’d ‘read through’ the comments and then later announce that the winner was ‘randomnly chosen’
You do see how this can give a false impression?
Note: I did not say that it was intentional, so there’s no need to take offense.
By: Richard O on December 14, 2010
at 12:40 am
Hi Richard,
I’m sorry to hear you found this confusing. Interestingly, I never said I would “read through” the comments or judge them to choose the winner. But, the next time around I’ll probably make an explicit reference to a random choice — although I thought that was implied.
I didn’t take offense that you raised a criticism, but that you implied that I was acting unethically right off the bat–without hearing my side of the story first. That’s the part that seems to me uncharitable: assuming the worst about someone before finding out all the details. But, no hard feelings, and your comment brought a potential misunderstanding to my attention.
All the best,
Chris
By: Chris on December 14, 2010
at 10:22 pm
Hello Chris,
Thank you kindly — please forgive me for any excessive stridency on my part.
Blessings to you.
R.
By: Richard O on December 14, 2010
at 10:36 pm
No problem!
Grace & peace,
Chris
By: Chris on December 14, 2010
at 10:51 pm