Why are American kids experiencing so much anxiety, depression, and suicide these days? It’s not because they experience hardship and difficulties. They have it easier than any previous generation. They have money, gadgets, and plenty of leisure time. Kids in other countries have a way more difficult life than American kids, but experience less anxiety, depression, and suicide. So finances are not the issue. Suffering is not the issue. What is it, then?


I said long ago that the normalization of pedophilia was on the horizon. That horizon has arrived. Various academics have written papers in recent years trying to normalize pedophilia. The latest at normalization comes from the United Nations.

The United Nations has essentially declared that it is a human right for minors to consent to sex with whomever they want, including adults. In a March 2023 report written by the International Commission of Jurists (an international group of 60 judges and lawyers), it’s declared that “sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them. Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.”


When people can’t answer your moral argument against some behavior or practice (such as abortion, same-sex marriage, or transgenderism), they’ll commonly respond with, “Well, how does this affect you?” This is a red herring. Don’t take the bait.

While you may be able to show how the behavior affects you, its personal impact on your life is irrelevant. This becomes obvious when you ask the same question of other moral matters. How are you personally affected by murder? How are you personally affected by sex trafficking? How are you personally affected by rape? There are many egregious evils in the world that have no felt impact on my life, and yet they remain evil nonetheless and should be condemned as evil.

The best way to respond to this ploy is by saying, “Whether I am personally affected by X or not is irrelevant. The question is whether X is right or wrong. I’ve provided reasons for thinking X is wrong. What do you think about that argument?”

Many parents would like to educate their kids in Christian theology, apologetics, and worldview, but don’t know where to start or where to obtain good resources. If you are looking for a curriculum for kids age 4-14, check out http://www.foundationworldview.com. It’s on online curriculum using videos, worksheets, and parent resources. There are four courses:

1. Worldview (ages 4-8)
2. Comparative Worldview (ages 8-12)
3. Studying the Bible (ages 8-12)
4. Careful thinking (ages 10-14)

Ratio Christi has also put together a list of resources by education level:
Elementary school
Middle School
High School

Finally, check out a video I recorded a few years ago showcasing the theology and apologetics resources I have used with my kids over the years.

When we respond to the transgender issue by pointing out that biology makes it clear that there are only two sexes, we are attacking a straw man.

Gender ideologues do not typically deny that sex is binary. What they deny is that our identity is limited to or determined by. In addition to our sex, we also have a gender and gender-identity. Gender is a social construct related to the different behavior and roles men and women play in society. Gender-identity is one’s perception and deeply felt experience of their gender. Most people’s gender and gender-identity matches their biological sex, but some people experience a mismatch. They may have a male gender-identity but a female body. In such cases, they should be considered a male because gender, not sex, gives us our identity. Some transgender people may desire to alter their body to match their gender, but others may be comfortable with their body. That’s why it’s perfectly legitimate to speak of men with uteruses and women with penises.


I have started a new podcast series on the Biblical teaching regarding divorce and remarriage. This was an intensive research project for me that I am finally ready to share. I have already posted a 1-N-Done episode on the topic which summarizes my conclusions. This will be followed by a long series of episodes where I will explore the topic in much more detail. Once I have finished the series, I will publish my research paper as well.

In my experience, few pastors are willing to address this issue from the pulpit because (1) they aren’t certain what the Bible teaches on the matter or (2) because they are afraid it will negatively impact too many people in their congregation. I understand those concerns, but God’s people need to hear what God’s Word has to say on this important and culturally relevant topic. Give it a listen and share it with your friends and family.

You can listen wherever you get your podcasts from, or at https://thinkingtobelieve.buzzsprout.com.

If there was ever a time when nothing existed then there would be nothing still, because nothing has no potential to become something. Out of nothing, nothing comes. And yet there is something, so we know there has never been a time when nothing existed. Something has always existed. What is that something?

Could the universe be eternal? No, as evidenced by the thermodynamic properties of the universe. The energy in the universe is finite and increasing toward entropy. If the universe were infinitely old, we would have reached a state of entropy an infinite time ago. And yet we have not reached a state of entropy, therefore the universe is not infinitely old. It began to exist a finite time ago.


As you know, I’ve been doing a podcast series on relativism. I began the series by examining relativism writ large, demonstrating why it’s false that we can’t know any truth at all. Then I moved on to explore the claim that we can’t know moral truth. Now I’m in the last phase of the series, exploring the application of relativism to religion. Religious relativism (RR) holds that religious truth cannot be known (or does not exist), so religions can only be true in a relative sense of the word.

I discuss three different forms of RR, how RR impacts the religious conversation, the reasons people subscribe to RR, and offer an extended critique of the view. Catch the latest episodes at https://thinkingtobelieve.buzzsprout.com or listen wherever you get your podcasts from.

Scientists could never discover that free will does not exist via scientific experimentation, because in a deterministic world, the result of the experiment would, itself, be determined. The conclusion that there is no such thing as free will would not be arrived at because the scientists chose to set up the experiment in a good way and reasoned correctly about the data they received. Instead, physics would determine both the study’s structure and conclusions. As such, the conclusion cannot be trusted.

Even if determinism is true, this truth would not be “discovered” by the experiment, but “determined.” Discovery requires the exercise of free will. That’s why all such experiments are self-defeating. They can only be informative if free will exists. And if the will must be free for the experiments to be informative, there is no point in doing the experiment. You already know the answer before you begin: free will exists.

Many Christians believe abortion is morally justified in cases of rape and incest – what I call “pro-life with a footnote.” I spoke extensively on this in part 16 (episode 23) of my podcast series on abortion, but wanted to say a bit more about this here.

This position fails to understand the logic of the pro-life position. We are opposed to abortion because the act of abortion (1) unjustly (2) takes the life of an (3) innocent, (4) valuable (5) human being. All five of these points are still true when a baby is conceived via rape or incest. The circumstances under which a human being is conceived does not change what is conceived, so the unborn is still human, still valuable, and still innocent even if he was conceived by an act of moral violence. Abortion would still take the life of the human conceived under such circumstances in the same manner it takes the life of humans conceived under other circumstances. As such, it would still be unjust to kill the baby conceived by rape or incest. Pro-lifers are opposed to murdering all innocent, valuable, human beings no matter how they came into being, and thus pro-lifers ought to be opposed to abortion under all circumstances.


I’ve often heard people claim that Saul of Tarsus confessed the deity of Christ during his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road by calling him “lord.” We read: “As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ 5 ‘Who are you, Lord? Saul asked. ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied.”  (Acts 9:3-5)

Those who see a confession of Jesus’ deity in this passage assert that as a monotheistic Jew, Saul’s acknowledgement of Jesus as “Lord” would be an explicit affirmation of His deity since Jews used “Lord” as a substitute for God’s name, YHWH. I find this interpretation unlikely for a number of reasons.


I told you about my relativism series in the last post. It is divided up into three sub-series: epistemological relativism (there is no truth at all), moral relativism (there is no moral truth), and religious relativism (there is no religious truth. I finished up the sub-series on epistemological relativism in December, and I’ve posted the first two episodes in the moral relativism sub-series in the last week.
In the first episode I provide an outline for the sub-series, explain the differences between moral objectivism and moral relativism, distinguish moral relativism from moral skepticism, explore how pervasive moral relativism is in our culture, and explain why we should be concerned.
In the second episode, I explain why people reject moral objectivity in favor of moral relativity: (1) It seems to follow from atheism; (2) It gives intellectual justification for one’s sin; (3) They desire moral neutrality and non-judgmentalism; (4) They think moral disagreements means there is no moral truth. After critiquing each of these reasons, I go on to discuss why it is that humans disagree on moral matters.
Give it a listen at https://thinkingtobelieve.buzzsprout.com or wherever you get your podcasts from.

I’ve begun a new podcast series on relativism. I started with the broadest form of relativism – epistemological relativism – which is the idea that no truth can be known. I’ll extend this to more specific forms of relativism: moral relativism and religious relativism (pluralism). In this context, I’ll be dealing with the notions of tolerance and judgmentalism as well. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or at http://thinkingtobelieve.buzzsprout.com.

In Jesus’ debate with the Sadducees, He defended His position that there will be a resurrection of the dead by quoting Exodus 3:6. Luke records Jesus as saying, “But even Moses revealed that the dead are raised in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live before him.” (Luke 20:37-8, NET).

Jesus’ argument seems to be as follows:

(1) God can only be “the God of…X”, if X exists

(2) God identified Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob centuries after their death

(3) Therefore, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still existed when God spoke to Moses

I find two problems with this line of reasoning.


The Senate just passed a bill to make same-sex marriage the law of the land, codify the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision into law. While it protects religious organizations from having to use their facilities for sa2me-sex weddings, it does not offer business owners any protections from being forced to render their services for same-sex weddings (e.g. florists, photographers, cake makers).

On a practical level, this law doesn’t change much. Same-sex marriage has already been the law of the land since 2015 due to the Supreme Court’s decision. What is particularly troubling to me is the fact that 12 Republicans voted in favor of this bill: Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Mitt Romney (Utah), Roy Blunt (Missouri), Cynthia Lummis (Wyoming), Richard Burr (N.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia.), Dan Sullivan (Alaska), Joni Ernst (Iowa) and Todd Young (Indiana). They wouldn’t even vote in favor of Mike Lee’s proposed amendment that would provide conscience protections for Americans and non-religious organizations and businesses. That signals to me that the party is moving away from conservatism toward libertarianism.


It can be difficult to start a conversation with someone regarding spiritual things. Here are some possibilities I’ve come up with:

  1. What is your worldview?
  2. Do you think there is anything beyond the physical world?
  3. Everyone recognizes that there is something broken about our world. What do you think the problem is?
  4. What is your hope in? What do you draw hope from?
  5. I’m curious. Do you believe in God? If not, why not?
  6. I’m a believer in God. Since you’re not, I would be interested to give you some of the reasons I believe in God and get your take on them.
  7. Have you ever read the Bible? If so, what did were your thoughts on it?
  8. What do you think about the person of Jesus?

Do you have any others that you’ve found helpful?

I completely forgot to mention that I was doing a series on the atonement for the Thinking to Believe podcast. It is a four part series. The final episode just went live.

The series seeks to explain the meaning of Jesus’ death and how it stands at the center of the Christian faith. Episode 1 explores the nature of Jesus’ mission, the OT sacrificial system as a means of atonement, and the necessity of the incarnation for God to fully and finally satisfy both His desire for justice and His desire for mercy.


Naturalism cannot support the idea that human beings have real, intrinsic value. This is a feature of the Judeo-Christian theology of the imago Dei – that we are made in the image of God. Absent this theological foundation, there is no reason to think human value is real. At best, humans only have a subjective, extrinsic value; i.e. our value is derived from our own estimation of ourselves. Human beings value particular traits that they possess, and thus value the human beings who possess such traits (a circular, biased, and wholly subjective estimation). This sort of value, however, is fictitious. It only exists in our minds, and it only extends to those that we think it extends to. This value is never equal, and it rarely applies to all human beings. Some human beings will be considered to be more valuable than others, and some will be deemed to have no value at all.


Conservatives are happier than liberals – especially women.

Brad Wilcox, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia did a study on happiness and found that conservatives were much happier than liberals, especially women. More than twice as many conservative women claim to be completely satisfied with their lives compared to liberal women. Why? Among other things, because conservatives were much more likely to be married than liberals.

Feminism has sold women a bag of goods that happiness is to be found in pursuing careers over family and that family structures must be egalitarian. This will not produce happiness.

Many Eastern religions make this claim about God. And now, it is being picked up as a popular idea among Westerners. Unfortunately, it is incoherent.

To say God is unknowable is either a statement about God or a statement about ourselves. If it is a statement about God, it is an affirmation that he has no properties capable of being known. And yet having at least one property is what differentiates existence from non-existence. If God has no properties, then he doesn’t exist.

If it is a statement about ourselves – our ability to know a God with specific properties – then it is self-refuting because the statement itself is a claim to know something about God: He is unknowable. If God were unknowable, we would not even be able to know that He was unknowable. The point can be made succinctly by asking, “How do you know God is unknowable if nothing can be known of God? Isn’t that something you know about him?”

Either way you look at it, that statement is incoherent.