One of the main reasons that I engage in political debates is that doings so creates so many opportunities for directing the conversation to the topics of God and the Bible.  Here's a recent example of a comment that someone left on one of my political posts which then grew into a debate on the moral argument for the existence of God. 

Every year around Easter, my Facebook feed fills up with speculations about the timing of the various events surrounding the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.  I’ve previously addressed questions about the hour at which Christ was crucified and about the timing of the crucifixion in relation to the Passover.  In this article, I’ll present a few of the reasons that I believe the crucifixion of Christ took place on a Thursday. 

In the study of logic, there is a fallacy called the no true Scotsman fallacy, and my study of the teachings of Calvinism have lead me to the conclusion that Calvinists fall prey to this same fallacy. 

Around this time of year, a lot of Christians try to explain the genealogies in Matthew and Luke by saying that Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy while Luke gives Mary's genealogy. While this is technically true, I think that it causes more confusion than necessary. The proper way to view the two genealogies is not as those of Joseph and Mary but rather as the genealogies of Joseph and Jesus.  

I was recently asked to draft a religious accommodation request (regarding the covid vaccines) that plainly outlines the reasons for the accommodation while also informing employers of their responsibility to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs.  After submitting my draft to a lawyer for review and receiving his approval, I decided to share it here in case anyone else would like to use it.

If you’ve followed my blog over the past year, you know that my wife is a stroke survivor who cannot wear a mask without risking another stroke.  She tried wearing a mask in July of last year and ended up with temporary paralysis of her right side.  Since that event, her symptoms from the stroke have flared up with a vengeance, and we have been attempting to get her tested and treated for whatever is causing it. 

There is a theory about the history of socialism that has annoyed me for some time now, and that is the theory that a man named James Harrington (whose writings had a powerful influence on America's founders) essentially taught socialism when he used the term "agrarian balance."  I have encountered this claim in the writings and lectures of Harvard historian Eric Nelson who wrote "The Hebrew Republic," a book that I highly recommend in spite of this particular error, and in discussions with Jon Rowe of the American Creation Blog.  The remainder of this article is a response that I made to one of Jon's reiterations of this claim. 

One of the most significant debates separating Christians in America is the debate over how to fight against abortion in our nation.  On the one hand, there are the mainstream pro-life leaders who argue that the best way to fight against abortion is to wage a war of attrition by passing incremental laws that make more and more abortions illegal until we finally eliminate all abortions entirely.  On the other hand are the personhood and abolitionist leaders who argue that the incremental approach is immoral and that we must strive to pass laws which outlaw all abortions without exception.  The two paths are irreconcilable.  We must choose one or the other, but how do we know which one is right?

At what point would you use lethal force against an unarmed assailant?  Have you ever thought about that question before?  I mean seriously thought about it, not just as a fleeting cogitation during the commercial break of your favorite police drama.  Have you ever sat down and planned how you would respond to different types of assaults on yourself or others with the consideration of using lethal force?