Is it true that we only believe in Christianity because we were raised in a Christian culture? This argument claims that if our religious beliefs are only relative to the arbitrary place in which we were born, then we can’t trust them to be true. However, this is a poor argument. To see why, we can ask this: Why limit this to just our religious beliefs? What about our political, moral, scientific, or philosophical beliefs? Are those simply fixed by where we were born? Should that cause us to discount them?

Ayn Rand was an influential thinker who lived during the 20th century, and many conservatives and libertarians have appreciated her ideas, particularly her championing of freedom of speech, capitalism, and individual rights. However, Ayn Rand was an outspoken atheist who did not like religion or Christianity. So how should we, as Christians, approach the ideas of Ayn Rand?

Have you ever seen claims like this floating around social media? “There have been thousands of religions, so how do you know yours is true?” “You don’t believe in thousands of gods; we just believe in one less.” Statements like this make faulty assumptions about how our religious beliefs work. Just because people have slightly different descriptions of the supreme being that doesn’t mean these ideas are all drastically different. In fact, they are mostly similar, and shows that the vast majority of people and cultures have concluded that there is, in fact, a supreme being – God.

Have you ever noticed how the moral argument for God is somewhat like the first-cause (or cosmological) argument for God? At the core of the first-cause argument is the idea that, if we notice a sequence of causes, then there must be either an infinite regress of causes or there was an ultimate first cause. However, the moral argument functions much in the same way. G. E. Moore introduced the idea of the “open question”: if we say that something is good, then the following question can always be asked: “What makes that thing good?” Any answer you give to that question can also have the same question asked of it: “Well, then that makes that thing good?” This causes an infinite regress unless, of course, there is one thing that is just ultimately good.

Are traditional methods of apologetics outdated? Does giving arguments for God or providing evidence that Jesus rose from the dead actually convince anyone? Should we instead only use apologetic methods that "work"? Some try to disparage traditional apologetic methods, claiming that they really don't convince anyone, and that other things like personal stories or emotional appeals are what really convince people to change their minds. But is simply making Christianity more “attractive” or “desirable” a better approach for apologetics?

Sometimes Christians are accused of trying to "legislate morality." What does that mean? Is it wrong to bring our moral values to the table when making legislation? This objection is often made with hot-button issues like abortion, but what about rape or murder? Is it "legislating morality" to outlaw those actions? We all have certain beliefs about reality, but are these beliefs moral beliefs? philosophical beliefs? religious beliefs? scientific beliefs? It can be hard to label or classify our beliefs, and thus oftentimes the objection against "legislating morality" is simply an appeal to rhetoric rather than substance.

What does it mean to say that the Bible is "self-authenticating"? If something is self-authenticating, that means that you don't need anything else to authenticate it or show that it real. In terms of the Bible, if it is self-authenticating, that means that the Bible itself shows that it really is the Word of God. However, some who say that the Bible is self-authenticating use that idea to imply that doing apologetics is wrong or unbiblical, that we shouldn't need to give evidence to support the Bible's truthfulness. But is that really what the Bible being self-authenticating means?

On July 13, 2024, there was an assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump while he was speaking at a political rally. In this podcast, Adam talks about how our frequently heated political rhetoric can lead to situations like this and discusses various ways that we, as Christians, can avoid being taken in by this rhetoric and becoming fearful, frustrated, angry, and hateful. We can disagree with someone’s political positions without using exaggerated statements or being a jerk, and we can refuse to engage in spreading this type of rhetoric.