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. 4 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)
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.
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 
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).
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.
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.
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.
There is a lot of confusion about what is meant by “moral relativism” and “moral objectivism/realism”
Thomas would not believe the report of the other disciples who said they had seen Jesus alive. He only believed in Jesus’ resurrection after Jesus appeared to Him as well. Jesus’ words to Thomas on that day have been immortalized in the Gospel of John: “Because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29).
Back when our country was still debating whether or not we should change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, those opposed to the redefinition argued that if we did so, polygamy and polyamory would be next. Opponents argued that this was a crazy slippery slope fallacy. But it wasn’t. It was a valid slippery slope argument. Conservatives were simply noting that the rationale for redefining marriage to include same-sex couples applied equally to all sorts of other relationships, including polygamy and polyamory. If you include same-sex couples, there is no rational basis on which to exclude polygamy. The idea that marriage should be limited to just two people is based on the sex binary. Once the sex binary is replaced with a simple requirement of “love and commitment,” polygamous and polyamorous relationships qualify for marriage as well.
We tend to trust the experts. The impulse is right because the experts have more knowledge and expertise in the subject than we do. They know the nuances. But when the experts claim to be above critique by non-experts, that’s a problem. When they say (in so many words) “you can’t evaluate my claims because I am the smart one and you are the dummy,” they are presenting an empty appeal to authority. The experts often differ among themselves, so we have reason to question the experts. After all, they can’t all be right. The only way to determine who is right is to question the experts.
Why study theology? Why does it matter? Isn’t theology just for preachers and smart guys? Isn’t theology divisive and difficult? In my latest podcast series titled “The Case for Theology,” I argue that while theology can be difficult and divisive, it’s unavoidable. All of us are theologians. The question is simply whether we will be a good or bad theologian.
Thinking to Believe 